Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

Message of Condolence

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received from the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Republic of Italy a copy of the record of speeches at the sitting on 26th January at which tribute was paid to Sir Winston Churchill. I have placed this in the Library for inspection by hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Equal Pay

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Labour what stage he has reached in his examination of the social and economic issues of implementing the right to equal pay for equal work; and when this examination will be completed.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ray Gunter): This examination is bound to take time, but it is making good progress. I cannot yet say how soon it will be completed.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House that it is his definite intention to introduce legislation to keep an election pledge given to the nation by the Labour Party that it would implement the right to equal pay for equal work?

Mr. Gunter: As my hon. Friend knows, the pledge given by the Labour Party was that if returned to power it would seek, at an appropriate stage in its first term of office, to consider ways and means of implementing equal pay. We shall fulfil that pledge.

Mr. Ridsdale: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost of such a proposal would be?

Mr. Gunter: There are so many actuaries and economists working on it now that I do not know.

Professional and Executive Register

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give instructions to the officials operating the Professional and Executive Register that they should give special help to applicants over the age of 50 years.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh): All our employment officers, including those working on the Professional


and Executive Register, are instructed to do what they can to persuade employers to consider older people on their merits. Even where an employer has set an age limit, suitable older workers are included amongst those selected for submission.

Mr. Smith: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that, while his recent interest in this subject is appreciated, there is nevertheless the feeling that some of the officials of the Professional and Executive Register tend not to press as hard as they should the claims of those over 50? Is he aware that the numbers placed in employment are still very small, and will he do what he can to improve the position?

Mr. Marsh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that this is a very difficult problem for the staff of the Professional and Executive Register, not least because a lot of employers are very worried about the possibility of blocking employment for younger people by retaining older people for too long; but I accept the spirit behind his Question.

Automation

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the additional manpower to be made available to industry over each of the next three years by reason of the introduction of automation.

Mr. Gunter: It has not been found practicable to make year by year estimates of this kind. The Manpower Research Unit's study No. 1 concluded that over the next five years the effect of technological changes on total manpower was expected to be quite marked in particular sectors of employment but that in very few cases could the effects be ascribed specifically to automation in the strict sense or to the introduction of computers. With fewer extra workers becoming available the general effect of the technological changes would be to help alleviate manpower shortages.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Could we not have a definite assessment, say three years hence, because the number of computers now coming into industry virtually daily must be making more labour available in both clerical and manual trades? Could the right hon. Gentleman not set a target, say three years hence, so that we could see what the position is at that time?

Mr. Gunter: I would be reluctant to set targets, but I appreciate the importance of making proper assessments.

Mr. Godber: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the latest unemployment figures show the need to do our utmost in this way to alleviate the call on skilled manpower at present and, therefore, the need for industry to make the greatest use of these methods?

Mr. Gunter: Yes. I do agree with that.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the Minister say why there is a shortage of labour when automation is persistently releasing labour?

Mr. Gunter: No. I would rather that question were directed to my precedessor in office.

Shipwrights

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware of the shortage of shipwrights on the Clyde, in East Scotland and in Birkenhead, causing delays in completion of ships; and what steps he is taking to solve this problem;
(2) what conversations he has held with the boilermakers' society about the shortage of shipwrights in some shipbuilding areas.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that skilled men of several trades in the Clyde shipyards are scarce; and what action he will take to solve this problem.

Mr. Marsh: I am aware of these shortages, and our local officers have been making every effort to fill those vacancies which have been notified to them. The future training programme for these trades is a matter for the recently established Shipbuilding Industry Training Board. Training is provided for some of the trades in the industry, such as welders in the Government training centres.

Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that the expansion of Japanese shipbuilding shows what a potential this industry has in the export field, and how helpful it could be to our economy? Is it not, therefore, essential to concentrate on this very important skilled labour; and also on the difficult question of demarcation?

Mr. Marsh: I accept entirely that there is a manpower problem in this industry, and it is a great pity that we were not able to start dealing with it perhaps a couple of years ago. We were not in a position to do so then, but we are doing so now. As to demarcation disputes, it would in the first instance be for employers to discuss some of the problems with the unions concerned, and if the help of the Ministry were required in that process we would be happy to consider this.

Mr. Taylor: Would the Minister agree that the shortage not just of shipwrights but of others in the finishing and steel work trades on the Clyde is a very serious problem, since the reputation of the Clyde depends on carrying out completion dates that have been undertaken? Did he not indicate in a Written Answer on 10th November last that there were 1,370 unemployed shipyard workers on the Clyde? Would he not agree that more effective use of labour and less rigid demarcation, and even a temporary measure of interchangeability of labour, might help to alleviate these difficulties, and would he not initiate discussions on those lines?

Mr. Marsh: With respect, it is very easy just to talk about problems of demarcation and trade union attitudes, but there is no reason why there cannot be discussions between the two sides—

Dame Irene Ward: There have been.

Mr. Marsh: No doubt the hon. Lady will ask her Questions when we get to them; in the meantime, I am dealing with the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). It is extremely important, in order to solve some of these problems, to create the right basis so as to remove some of the fears of insecurity that are in the minds of men. My right hon. Friend's policies in regard to redundancy payments, and things of that kind, will go a long way towards doing that.

Mr. Heffer: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the boilermakers' and shipwrights' unions have now amalgamated as one organisation, with the result that demarcation disputes have diminished considerably; and that the problem of shipworkers is basically one of decent conditions and decent wages?

Mr. Marsh: This exchange is now moving to a somewhat different area—to the whole question of the shipbuilding industry. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has set up an inquiry into the industry at the present time, and these are some of the factors with which it will deal.

London Docks (Congestion)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what have been the results of the recent representations he made to the dock workers to help to clear congestion in the Port of London.

Mr. Gunter: Following my talks with trade union officials at the end of last year, the Transport and General Workers' Union took prompt action to bring the facts of the situation to the attention of its members and the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers Union held a meeting of its members. In most of the London docks, however, the men, while already working overtime during the week, were unwilling to work at week-ends.

Mr. Lewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any improvement in recruitment into the dock labour force; and whether he expects to take any steps to improve recruitment in advance of the report we expect? Can he also say when he is likely to have that report?

Mr. Gunter: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the congestion at the London docks has eased since the end of 1964. As to his second point, we would, of course, like to see weekend working because if ships are to keep their sailing times there is an inevitability about working docks over the weekend. But do not let it be forgotten that these men are already working considerable overtime during the week, and we need to be very careful before entering into judgment on them if, like the rest of us, they want a weekend off. I should not like to give a precise date when the report may be expected, but the earlier the better.

Mr. Godber: The Minister will no doubt have seen, as others have, reports in the Press of the possibility of steps being taken by unofficial leaders to try to prevent or discourage workers from


working ordinary overtime. Are any steps being taken by the unions or by the Ministry to try to prevent this measure from achieving the same success that, unfortunately, attended those people's efforts in regard to weekend working?

Mr. Gunter: I have read reports about the proposed action. I do not know whether the situation will arise or not, but the unions are doing all they can to prevent it arising.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Labour what response has been made by port employers to appeals for harder work, increased overtime, including Sunday working, and improved planning, to help to clear congestion in the Port of London.

Mr. Gunter: I have made no appeal to port employers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has had discussions with port employers and port users with a view to securing improved flow of cargoes through our ports.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am surprised that, appeals having been made to the workers, none has been made to the employers? Is he further aware that there have been occasions in recent weeks in the Port of London where men have reported to work on a Sunday but, due to the inability or the unwillingness of employers to organise the job properly, have been sent home because there was no work to do?

Mr. Gunter: As I indicated, the employers have been meeting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I agree that the fault is on both sides. I am not arguing that. On the labour question, I await what Lord Devlin's Committee has to say on the sort of thing which my hon. Friend has put before the House this afternoon.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that generally Sunday working is unsatisfactory and uneconomic and that when men have done six or five hard days' work they are entitled to a day's rest and that we get better results from a shorter working week if the week is properly organised? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind?

Mr. Gunter: I have been preaching that gospel for a long time.

Merseyside

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Labour in view of the continuing high level of unemployment in the Merseyside area, what steps are being taken to develop training and retraining schemes in the area; and what plans he has for the future.

Mr. Marsh: I am giving assistance to the Merseyside Training Council towards the promotion of group training schemes, of which there are already three successful ones on Merseyside and a fourth is about to be launched. Merseyside should also benefit from the increase of training facilities of which it is one purpose of the Industrial Training Act to encourage. As an additional direct contribution, I am increasing the capacity of the Liverpool Government Training Centre to take about 800 trainees a year, and I am considering what further expansion of Government training centres over the country as a whole is necessary.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that this statement will be very much welcomed on the Merseyside? On the other hand, is he aware that the great problem we face on Merseyside is the need for skilled labour? Therefore, will everything be done to assist us in getting skilled labour which will help us to solve our unemployment and economic problems?

Mr. Marsh: I accept that that is an extremely important point, but Merseyside is a development district and employers within a development district are themselves eligible for grant—that is, they can obtain assistance for approved training. It has to be said again that one of the ways in which industry can help in this matter is for the smaller firms, particularly, to join together in group training schemes so that they themselves can train people. This is not something for which the Government alone, without industry, can take the entire responsibility.

Wages and Productivity

Mr. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to see that agreements for wage increases


are related to increases in productivity in those, cases in which he or his Department play a part in settling disputes.

Mr. Gunter: The Government, representatives of employers' organisations and the Trades Union Congress have signed a Joint Statement of Intent on Productivity, Prices and Incomes and have agreed on Machinery for Prices and Incomes Policy. Discussions are now proceeding on the next stages of the prices and incomes policy. I shall carry out my responsibilities in accordance with the policy agreed between the Government and the other parties.

Mr. Mitchell: Is not the Minister able to go rather further than that, in view of the statement of intent which said that there would be urgent and vigorous action to raise productivity throughout industry and commerce? We expected more from the Minister at this stage.

Mr. Gunter: I am not sure of the relevance of that question, because we have not yet completed our discussions on prices and incomes policy.

Restrictive Practices

Mr. Mitchell: asked the Minister of Labour what is the policy of his Department towards the elimination of restrictive practices.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in his discussions with both sides of industry on the elimination of restrictive practices.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Labour what is his policy on the abolition of restrictive practices by both sides in industry.

Mr. Park: asked the Minister of Labour what progress is being made in the implementation of his policy to eliminate restrictive practices at all levels of industry.

Mr. Gunter: I shall give whatever help and encouragement I can to industry in following up the commitment of both employers and unions in the Joint Declaration of Intent to lead a sustained attack on obstacles to efficiency. I am particularly concerned to secure the more efficient use of manpower. The various measures we are taking towards improving the security of workpeople and to assist labour

mobility will establish favourable conditions for this.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend take what steps he can to inform public opinion that this process of abolishing restrictive practices is a two-way one and that there are restrictive practices on the part of employers and not just on the part of trade unionists?

Mr. Park: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that under the heading "restrictive practices" comes monopolies, price rings and price leadership agreements, and would he not investigate the possibility of doing something about those as well as the other restrictive practices referred to?

Mr. Gunter: The question of monopolies is not for me, but I can repeat that I will do whatever I can to come to terms with restrictive practices. I am saying a prayer that someone will tell me exactly what is embraced by the term "restrictive practices".

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in all this talk of restrictive practices, the prevention by the N.U.R. of road hauliers going to railway terminals to pick up or deliver goods for liner trains is a restrictive practice, and would he not condemn that?

Mr. Gunter: I understand that the matter is still under discussion between Dr. Beeching and the railway unions.

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has said that monopolies are not within his purview, but in so far as restrictive practices are within his purview he must be interested in the restrictive practices associated with monopolies. Can he say, therefore, when legislation on monopolies will be introduced; and was any such legislation left by the previous Administration?

Mr. Gunter: I am afraid I cannot say.

International Labour Organisation (Recommendation)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Labour which member-States of the International Labour Organisation have now agreed to comply with the recommendation on termination of employment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): Member States are not


obliged to state whether or not they agree to comply with International Labour recommendations. I understand, however, that, in addition to ourselves, the Governments of India, the Ivory Coast, Japan and Switzerland have so far indicated agreement with the general principles of the recommendation.

Sir Richard Glyn: Would the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend agree that these recommendations involve onerous obligations which have not yet been accepted by our principal trade rivals either in the Common Market or in E.F.T.A. or across the Atlantic? In these circumstances, will the Government exercise caution in imposing these obligations on British manufacturers, thus causing inflation in this country and rendering their goods less competitive as exports in overseas markets?

Mr. Thornton: The law and practice in this country already conform in many respects to the recommendation and, as announced last December in Cmnd. Paper No. 2548, the Government propose to discuss with representatives of employers and trade unions the provision of procedures to give effective safeguards against arbitrary dismissal. I should point out that this recommendation was agreed by all the members of the United Kingdom delegation to the conference.

Shift Working

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour what discussions he has had with the Trades Union Congress and the Employers' Confederation to get more shift working and a better use of industrial labour, with less restrictions on both sides of industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gunter: This is one of a number of aspects of industrial efficiency which I intend to discuss with my National Joint Advisory Council on which both the B.E.C. and the T.U.C. are represented.

Sir C. Osborne: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is impossible for industries such as those in Lancashire to compete with those in the Far East when our country is working only one shift for five days and they are working three shifts for seven days? Would not

the right hon. Gentleman expose both the employers and the trade unions which refuse to work the machinery properly as enemies of the State? What sanction has he against them—none?

Mr. Gunter: I am bound to agree that where capital costs are high shift work can often make a very important contribution to competitive efficiency, and it is, therefore, important that management and employees should be prepared to co-operate in its introduction in appropriate circumstances. One of the difficulties which always arises on shift work is how to compensate the man who works shifts and thereby loses some of his family or social life. This is one of the problems employers must face.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that to describe men and women whose whole health, family life and social life will be disrupted by night work as "enemies of the State" is going much too far?

Hon. Members: Outrageous.

Factory Inspectorate

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Labour what measures he has taken to strengthen the Factory Inspectorate in order to reduce accidents.

Mr. Rose: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has now taken to increase the number of factory inspectors and the frequency of factory inspection.

Mr. Gunter: There has been continuous recruitment to H.M. Factory Inspectorate and there has been a net gain of 21 inspectors since January 1964. There are now 484 inspectors in post.

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tributes which have been paid on both sides of the House to the very fine work done by the existing inspectorate, which is terribly overworked? Can he give us some indication as to the number of inspectors he considers are required for the inspectorate to be up to full force?

Mr. Gunter: The present authorised strength is 516, and we are making very good progress towards reaching it. When we reach this figure, we shall have to have another look at it.

Mr. Rose: In assessing the number of inspectors required, would my right


hon. Friend take into account that new developments in processes and materials are attendant with new hazards? Would he also take into account the fact that only 40 per cent. of reportable accidents are in fact reported and that more working days are lost through industrial injuries and diseases than are lost through strikes?

Mr. Gunter: I entirely take my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend also bear in mind, when he is considering legislation, that he might make it mandatory on factory inspectors to consult workpeople's representatives as well as employers when they visit establishments? This would go a long way towards meeting many of the grievances which workpeople have but have difficulty in airing at present.

Mr. Gunter: This is a matter which has been and is the subject of discussion with the trade unions. I think I am right in saying, however, that it is not mandatory upon the inspectors to consult the employers either.

Development Areas

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Labour what measures he will take to assist men who have had to leave their homes in development areas to find work elsewhere to return home in the event of work becoming available.

Mr. Marsh: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 3rd February, 1965.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply on 3rd February was an unsatisfactory one, particularly in regard to the limit of two years on a resettlement transfer scheme? Why should not that limit be extended? Is the registration of those men who have had to leave home kept up to date, particularly in regard to additional skills they may have learned on leaving home and any other relevant information?

Mr. Marsh: It would be impossible for the Ministry to keep tags on all men who leave an area and take up employment elsewhere. Many such men may not have had the slightest intention of returning to the area. The Ministry is prepared to register for employment any man who

might wish to return to his original area, and to ensure that he is given information on any vacancies which may arise there. The Ministry will also ensure that his particulars are forwarded to employers within the area. It would be quite impracticable for the Ministry to retain virtually for all time records of everyone who leaves every development area.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will undertake an investigation into the number of potential employees, who live near enough to development areas to be able to work in them, who would be prepared to come back to development areas should job opportunities become available in them.

Mr. Marsh: Anyone interested in vacancies in another area can arrange to have them brought to his attention through any convenient employment exchange. I do not think it would be right for me to suggest to men and women who are already in employment and who have not notified the employment exchange of any desire to change jobs, that they should consider seeking work elsewhere.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I did not ask that? I merely asked for the information. Is he aware that industries, particularly with large-scale plans for employment, find a development area such as the one I represent hard to consider because of fears, which I believe to be erroneous, that there may not be enough labour available? Is he aware that information on who is available and where from would be very helpful to them? Is not that the kind of service which the Ministry and the Government could and should undertake?

Mr. Marsh: I accept the hon. Member's point, but it would be very difficult to keep that sort of information up to date. One would have to have a constant review to find whether a man still wanted to come back there or not.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: How difficult would that be? Is it insoluble, or is it practicable to achieve that?

Mr. Marsh: I think that it is impracticable because it would mean tracing every man who left a development area


and finding out whether he might want to come back to the area at some later date to some job yet unknown. It would mean constantly checking to see whether he wanted to come back or whether he had changed his mind. It would involve a fantastic amount of work, bearing in mind that if a man had any desire to come back to the area he could register that information with the local exchange.

Pension Rights (Transferability)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to provide greater flexibility of labour, especially in the managerial class, he will introduce legislation to make illegal non-transferable pension rights; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Labour when he will introduce a Bill dealing with the transferability of all private pension schemes.

Mr. Gunter: A Committee of my National Joint Advisory Council is at present considering how wider provision might be made for the preservation of occupational pension rights on change of employment. I shall consider what action should be taken in the light of the Committee's report.

Sir C. Osborne: Has the Minister any idea how many of these non-transferable pension schemes there are? Will he bear in mind that a middle-aged executive, who is a very good man, is often a prisoner of a bad employer who will not let him take his pension rights with him? Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to end this scandal?

Mr. Gunter: I have already indicated that this is a complicated and very serious matter. This is one of the things which retards the mobility of labour which we want. I hope that the Committee's report will be of such a character as to enable us to tackle the job of doing something about it. I cannot without notice tell the hon. Gentleman how many such schemes there are.

Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that in a manifesto which set out what proposals were poised ready to put into instant action his party promised to see that transferability was made a compulsory element in all pension schemes? How long will this Committee take to

study the plans required for this legislation?

Mr. Gunter: We hope that it will proceed with remarkable speed. We have a deep sense of urgency, a sense of urgency which perhaps has not been seen for a long time, in reviewing this complicated problem. As hon. Members opposite know in their position as employers, it is a very complicated problem because of differing rules in the hundreds of separate funds which have been set up.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Society of Pension Consultants is engaged in a detailed study of this problem? Will he keep in touch with the Society?

Mr. Gunter: Yes.

Mr. Godber: As the Minister says that he is moving with such great speed in this matter, perhaps he will be good enough to acknowledge that this Committee was set up before the election by the previous Government to look into this matter. Was it not, therefore, kind of us to anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to move forward? Would the Minister agree that there are many aspects of this problem, one of which is that we do not want to discourage other firms from initiating pension schemes?

Mr. Gunter: I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that we have brought a real sense of urgency into the Committee's work.

Industrial Processes (Chemical Substances)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the danger of occupational bladder tumour in the rubber industry, if he will call upon firms who have used or are using beta-naphthylamine and other similar chemicals to have their employees and ex-employees who were in contact with these substances medically examined, regularly screened and, when necessary, given treatment.

Mr. Gunter: I made it clear in my statement on 15th February that I was advising the industries and firms concerned in this sense.

Mr. Orbach: In view on the increasing number of deaths attributed to the use


of aromatic amines in the rubber and other industries, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is sure that every possible step has been taken to seek out the employees and former employees of all the companies concerned?

Mr. Gunter: As I think my hon. Friend knows, I propose to have immediate discussions with the trade unions to ensure that what my hon. Friend has mentioned is done.

Aircraft Workers

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to enable Her Majesty's Government to give financial compensation to aircraft workers made redundant by Her Majesty's Government's decisions to cancel aircraft.

Mr. Gunter: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on 17th February to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Minister of Labour how many aircraft workers will become redundant in the Gloucester and Stroud employment areas as a result of the Government's decision to cancel the HS681 aircraft.

Mr. Gunter: Hawker Siddeley Ltd. announced last week that they intend to close their design office at Gloucester, which was then employing 169 workers. It is not possible to say to what extent this is due to Government decisions. Fifty-nine workers were given notice of discharge on 17th February, and my officers are visiting the establishment today and tomorrow with a view to offering other employment to those who need our help.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement that he does not know why these men are being dismissed is quite astonishing? Will the right hon. Gentleman also appreciate that in this area there are no comparable forms of employment where these highly-skilled men with very special training can get anything like the wages which they have been having up to now?

Mr. Gunter: I could not be more specific at the moment, because we are awaiting, and we shall not know until

Wednesday or Thursday, the qualifications and wishes of the men involved.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take really urgent action? Is he aware that this is the direct result of the action of his Government, contrary to all their promises at the General Election?

Mr. Gunter: It is not true to say that this is entirely due to the Government. There is a lot of doubt as to whether all these men are redundant as a result of Government action.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for the alternative employment of people made redundant by the Government's cancellation of the HS681 and the P1154 aircraft.

Mr. Gunter: As soon as they are informed of any impending redundancies the staff of the employment exchanges concerned are ready to interview the workers affected at their place of work with a view to arranging alternative employment or any necessary training.

Mr. Fisher: What happens to these people—I am thinking particularly of the design teams and draughtsmen who have lost their jobs—if there is no comparable employment locally? Is the right hon. Gentleman making plans to get comparable employment for them elsewhere in equally skilled jobs?

Mr. Gunter: It would be foolish of me to suggest that the highly-trained and specialist design groups who are affected could easily be found employment in the exact locality where they are, but my Ministry will make every effort to ensure as far as possible that they are found employment with the least inconvenience to them.

Mr. A. Royle: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to make certain that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence increases the order for the P1127, thereby employing many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on the same work in which they are skilled and which they have been doing for the last 15 to 20 years?

Mr. Gunter: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will note what has been said.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the persons concerned are, in fact, qualified scientists or engineers?

Mr. Gunter: Not without notice.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to secure that suitable alternative employment in the neighbourhood is found for workers at the Hawker Siddeley factory in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames who will lose their jobs as the result of the Government's decision to cancel the construction of certain British aircraft.

Mr. Gunter: Forty-five workers have sought my Department's help in obtaining other work, either through the special office which was opened at the factory on 12th February or at their nearest employment exchange. Most of them have already been put in touch with prospective employers within daily travelling distance of their homes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman refers to those workers who have sought his Department's help, but is he aware that among those affected are members of the highly specialised design team which, under Sir Sydney Camm, has been designing for the last 30 years aircraft which have been of great service to this country? Is he aware that they are losing their jobs as a direct result of the Government's decision to cancel the P.1154 and, therefore, there is a moral obligation upon him to take special steps to see that they secure suitable employment for their skill near their homes?

Mr. Gunter: Twenty-seven of the highly qualified workers registered with the Professional and Executive Register but two of them left immediately for the provinces. The other 25 have been put in touch with prospective employers for a total of 146 vacancies.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, but in view of the numbers now under or threatened with notice, would the right hon. Gentleman observe that the original Question asked what special steps he was taking? Would he now answer that?

Mr. Gunter: If my Answer did not convey that very thing to the right hon. Gentleman, only God can give him understanding.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Rolls-Royce wants a substantial number of designers and that these might come from among those made redundant at the Hawker Siddeley works?

Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. Royle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Labour candidates in my constituency and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) during the election gave firm pledges that the Labour Government would not cancel the P1154 or the P1127? When will the present Government keep some of the pledges made during the election campaign?

Mr. Gunter: As far as I am aware, my party made no pledge at all of the character stated by the hon. Member. In any case, I am answering the Question. If the hon. Member wants an argument about the matter, this is not the time.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour what consultations he is having with the aircraft manufacturers on the question of the payment of adequate severance pay to workers declared redundant as a result of the contraction of the industry.

Mr. Gunter: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) on 17th February, until the general legislation proposed on this subject comes into operation severance payments are a matter for negotiations between the employers and the unions. My right hon. Friend is urgently considering to what extent such payments can properly be claimed as a charge against the contracts recently cancelled by his Department.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the workers affected by the contraction of the industry, which would be inevitable in any event, are greatly dissatisfied with the present schemes instituted by the aircraft industry? What consultations is my right hon. Friend having with the manufacturers to see whether they can improve their payments, and what steps is he taking to expedite legislation to make this compulsory upon employers?

Mr. Gunter: I hope that the legislation will be introduced shortly. Negotiations are at present going on between employers and unions about severance pay in the industry affected.

Mr. Godber: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept—from his previous replies, I take it that he does—that there is a special responsibility on the Government in this case to see that these workers do receive adequate compensation? Will he do all he possibly can with his right hon. Friend to see that they do?

Mr. Gunter: As I said in my original Answer, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is urgently considering this matter now.

Redundant Miners, Northumberland and Durham

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Labour what special retraining facilities will be available without a waiting period for the redundant miners of the Northumberland and Durham division over the next three years.

Mr. Marsh: This will depend on the trades in which training is required and the circumstances at the time.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the very satisfactory reply that was given for Merseyside, can I look forward to a similarly satisfactory reply for the North-East Coast? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is going to be increasing redundancy in the mining industry? Can he tell us what he is going to do for our miners on the North East Coast, for whom it is just as necessary to have a training scheme as it is for the miners on Merseyside?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Lady is quite right—

Dame Irene Ward: Hooray.

Mr. Marsh: I am sure the hon. Lady has never had any doubts on that score.

Dame Irene Ward: Never.

Mr. Marsh: She is quite right in believing that both she and her constituents have far more cause for faith in the future than in the past.
As to the miners, we can cope with the position when it arises, but it is

impossible to say what facilities we shall provide for specific groups of people before they are declared redundant and before we know whether they are prepared to take that sort of training.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is overwhelmed by deathbed repentance—

Dame Irene Ward: I am not dying.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are all concerned that the hon. Lady should remain in this House for a long time to make the same mistake that she has made this afternoon in asking the question? Is he further aware that I have frequently asked the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) to provide training facilities for redundant miners in the North-East, and now it is necessary for hon. Members opposite to make the same demand from this Government?

Mr. Marsh: Coming between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady—

Dame Irene Ward: Do not bother.

Mr. Marsh: I was going to say, before the hon. Lady was in danger of splitting something, that coming between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady is a responsibility that I would rather not really want to shoulder, but it is possible to announce that my right hon. Friend is reviewing the whole question of extending Government training to these centres, and this is one area which may well benefit from the review.

Mr. Godber: In view of the supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the North-East there has been a substantially increased provision of training facilities and places over the last two years?

Mr. Marsh: There have been increases in these facilities, but, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept, the whole tenor of these questions and the fact that his hon. Friend should have asked this Question prove conclusively that the policies were quite unsatisfactory.

Felling Training Centre

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Labour how many places are available for retraining and how many for rehabilitation at the Felling Training Centre; and what is the size of the waiting list.

Mr. Marsh: There are 345 training places in the Government training centre at Felling and 100 rehabilitation places in the Industrial Rehabilitation Unit. The waiting lists are 111 and 60 respectively.

Dame Irene Ward: Taking all these figures globally, about which I will not argue, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the mining industry in the northern districts requires information now on what steps will be taken, in view of the fact that the industry can provide the hon. Gentleman with the information about redundancy in the mines? We should not have such good results in mining on the North-East Coast if the industry did not know its trade. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the industry knows its trade better than he does?

Mr. Marsh: It is our intention to provide another 44 places which will provide training for 88 men at Felling before the middle of this year, and another 82 places at Billingham which will provide training for another 160 men. We accept that the position is unsatisfactory, and I am sure the hon. Lady would be prepared to say that it is unsatisfactory at the moment, but it is her right hon. Friend's fault and not ours. In addition to these sizeable increases which have taken place, we are also considering the whole of the Government training centre programme.

Dame Irene Ward: I am obliged.

Marsh Committee (Report)

Mr. Godber: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Marsh Committee on training will submit a formal report to him on the completion of its work; when he expects to receive the Report; what request he has made to the Committee to submit interim reports; and how many such reports he has so far received.

Mr. Gunter: The Committee will not submit a formal report but will make

recommendations to my right hon. Friends and myself from time to time as appropriate.

Mr. Godber: Have there yet been any recommendations about training or retraining, particularly in the light of the last answers of the hon. Gentleman, who is the chairman of this Committee and seemed to be claiming large advantages from recent additions which, as he knows, are much lower than the additions which have been made in the last two years?

Mr. Gunter: It is, as the right hon. Gentleman has observed, unusual to publish details about the work of inter-Departmental Committees. While I felt it right to inform the House of the setting up of this Committee, I do not think it would be appropriate to give details of all the questions that it considers or the recommendations it makes. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government should be judged on the decisions they take.

Immigrants

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Labour how many aliens and Commonwealth immigrants, respectively, including in each category their dependants, had been unemployed for more than six weeks on the last date for which figures are available.

Mr. Thornton: No separate statistics are maintained of unemployed aliens. On 1st February, 1965, the number of Commonwealth immigrants registered as unemployed was 9,224. I regret that an analysis by length of unemployment is not available.

Sir D. Renton: Does not the fact that there were 9,000 Commonwealth immigrants unemployed indicate that it would be as well if the Minister of Labour were to stop issuing employment vouchers for Commonwealth immigrants until these people have been absorbed into our labour market?

Mr. Thornton: When control was instituted in July 1962, 10 per cent. of the immigrants—both immigrants and our own indigenous people—were unemployed. The last available figure is 2·7 per cent

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: How many of these have been long-term unemployed, say for a period of six months?

Mr. Thornton: I regret to say that we have no statistics on that, but what information is available leads me to the conclusion, on which I am not being too specific or definite, that the long-term unemployment amongst the immigrant population is no greater than it is among the indigenous population.

Mr. Orme: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us on this side of the House do not accept this breakdown of unemployment figures among immigrants and non-immigrants and that we want to see the unemployment problem solved in its entirety irrespective of where the people come from or who they are?

Mr. Thornton: I find myself in substantial agreement with my hon. Friend, but I hope he will appreciate that I am answering the Question put to me.

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Labour how many Commonwealth immigrants were employed by British Railways and London Transport Executive on the last date for which figures are available.

Mr. Thornton: I regret that I do not have this information.

Sir D. Renton: Bearing in mind that one of the most important facts about the immigrant population is that it is said that they are needed on British Railways and London Transport, would the hon. Gentleman try to obtain the information?

Mr. Thornton: We have tried to find it. The information available is very restricted and governed largely by the issue of A vouchers. We shall do what we can, of course, but it is not easy to determine the position. It is well known that a number of immigrants are engaged in London Transport and British Railways, and I think it is also appreciated that they are rendering very valuable service to the community.

Mr. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman go further and confirm not only that a very large number of immigrants are employed on London Transport but that London Transport would be in very considerable difficulties without them?

Mr. Freeson: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is deplorable that certain hon. Members opposite tend to bring into their Questions to certain Ministers, as we have witnessed today, what some of us would describe as a racialist undertone?

Sir D. Renton: In order that the arguments for or against having a large number of immigrants here for service on the railways shall not be exaggerated either way, is it not most important that the House should be provided with the information for which I have asked?

Mr. Thornton: I have attempted to give all the information we have. It is an exremely difficult problem. The Ministry staff, I am sure, does the best it can, but let it not be forgotten that we took over the Government machine quite recently.

Unofficial Strikes

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour what action is taken by him when an unofficial strike occurs to ascertain the cause of the dispute; and what is the nature of the action taken to bring such disputes to an end.

Mr. Gunter: My officers usually obtain information from the employer or employers' association and from the trade union. Most unofficial strikes are in breach of agreements and they frequently end as a result of the trade union officials persuading their members to allow the dispute to be dealt with through the agreed procedure of the industry.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I deplore the unofficial strike as much as he does, but would he not agree that frequently criticisms indulged in against men who go on strike are unwarranted and that the trouble occurs because of delays in negotiations or because of interference with practices by management or those responsible for general administration? Would the right hon. Gentleman not ensure that in future when an unofficial strike occurs inquiries are held by his Ministry to ascertain the actual cause of the dispute?

Mr. Gunter: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the causes of unofficial strikes have not been sufficiently analysed in the past. It is generally believed, however, that the majority of them


are caused by bad communications within industry, for which managements must accept a great share of responsibility. On the other hand, there are unofficial strikes which are absolutely to be deplored, and I do not think that anybody should shrink from deploring them and stating so in public. On the question of investigation, the vast majority of unofficial strikes are over very quickly and it is generally thought that to have a real first-class inquiry and arouse the embers again would be dangerous. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend will know that the Trades Union Congress and the employers have agreed to investigate a selected number of unofficial strikes to see how they came about.

Mr. Godber: On the last point made by the Minister, that particular plan was started some months ago. Have the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress put it in hand yet? The Minister will be aware that it was our intention that it should be a tripartite effort, with the Government involved, too. I still think that was the best way, but, on the assumption that they are going ahead on the bipartisan method, it is necessary that matters proceed immediately. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many industries in regard to which it is most valuable to bring the light of public knowledge to bear on unofficial strikes as soon as possible?

Mr. Gunter: I could not say exactly at what stage the procedure is at the moment. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I shall give him an answer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In the event of the doctors coming out on strike, is it likely to be official or unofficial, and will my right hon. Friend deplore it in advance?

Mr. Gunter: The doctors are not, I am glad to say, within the limit of my responsibilities.

Vacancies, London

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take to implement the policy of Her Majesty's Government to restrict to Londoners the filling of employment vacancies in the London area.

Mr. Marsh: The policy of Her Majesty's Government is not as restrictive as the hon. Member suggests, but vacancies are only offered to registrants outside daily travelling distance if they cannot be filled from within daily travelling distance. My Department is, of course, playing its full part in Her Majesty's Government's policies for the better distribution of employment which provide the real answer to the problem my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend consider issuing a statement giving full details of this policy, since there is, as I am sure he recognises, a great deal of anxiety in the London area because of the present unsatisfactory relationship between homes and jobs? We are not altogether satisfied that houses are being allocated according to housing needs, and we should like to have a much broader discussion of the whole matter.

Mr. Marsh: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is dealing with the problem of housing. Many jobs cannot be moved out of London. There are those employed in many of the services, for example, hospitals and transport, and their jobs cannot be moved out of London. The Government's distribution of industry and office building policies will reduce the number of vacancies being created within the London area.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On the other hand, will the hon. Gentleman accept that we must not have a "dog in the manger" attitude towards this policy? Will he have regard to the case in my constituency, for instance, of a young draughtsman attracted down to Hawker Siddeley in Kingston to work on the building of the P 1154 who, only three or four weeks ago, moved his family down but who is now unemployed and is, of course, looking for work in the London area?

Mr. Marsh: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will immediately let my Department have details of the man he has in mind, who, as a skilled craftsman, is unable to obtain work in the London area.

Wage Drift

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to publish figures for wage drift in each Ministry


of Labour standard region, broken down by industries.

Mr. Thornton: No, Sir. The technical difficulties make this impracticable. The calculation of wage drift is extremely complicated and it is difficult to produce useful results for the country as a whole and all industries combined. Figures broken down, by industry and region, would not be reliable enough to be useful. The Ministry does, of course, publish regional estimates of men's average earnings by industry and for some occupations in "Statistics on Incomes, Prices, Employment and Production", copies of which are available in the Library.

Mr. Higgins: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, unless he is prepared to publish such figures and to do the spadework necessary to give them to the House, it is quite impossible for us to appraise the success or failure of the Government's incomes policy? Does not he realise that, unless he wishes the incomes policy to be regarded as mere window-dressing, he must look into the whole matter?

Mr. Thornton: The incomes policy is by no means window-dressing. A number of assumptions have to be taken into account in making a global calculation for the country as a whole, and by industries. I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. An assessment has to be made of the overtime element, some of which is at time and a third, some at time and a quarter, some at time and a half, and some at double time for Sunday. An assessment has to be made on that basis. In breaking the position down for regions and for each industry within regions, the margin of error would increase and the final result would be practically valueless.

Mr. Biffen: For clarification, could the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is his view that his Ministry is unable to produce any figures of wage drift which are meaningful or useful for those who have to carry out the incomes policy?

Mr. Thornton: This is a matter which is receiving our close attention. I have answered the particular Question I was asked.

Trade Union Law and Practice (Royal Commission)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now name the members of the Royal Commission which he is setting up to review trade union law and practice.

Mr. Gunter: I hope that an announcement will be made in the near future.

Mr. Ridsdale: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how long the Royal Commission will take? Is it not a very convenient way of putting under the counter the very necessary reforms which must be made in trade union structure?

Mr. Gunter: I shall not enter into an argument reflecting on the eminent gentlemen who are to serve on the Royal Commission.

Sir D. Renton: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) announced nearly a year ago that, if our party got in, there was to be an inquiry after the General Election, and as the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry has been well alerted to the things which have to be done to establish the Royal Commission, why is there this quite unnecessary delay?

Mr. Gunter: The circumstances are not quite as the right hon. and learned Gentleman imagines. Upon the passing of the Conservative Administration, there was a very sour atmosphere on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS, "Oh."] There was a very sour atmosphere indeed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Who created it?

Mr. Gunter: I am not arguing who created it. It existed. Therefore, it was necessary to give a lot of new thought to how we were to get both the employers and the trade unions to co-operate in the establishment of what I regard as one of the most important initiatives undertaken in this field for a long time.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) does not seem to have anything particular to do, can my right hon. Friend give an absolute guarantee that he will not land up on this Royal Commission?

Mr. Gunter: I can indeed.

Captain Elliot: Will the Minister give an undertaking that, when the Royal Commission is set up, there are on it members other than trade union or employer representatives?

Mr. Gunter: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be very satisfied.

IMPORT CHARGE (REDUCTION)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): When the Government announced the introduction of the import charge on 26th October, 1964, we made it clear that this was a temporary measure needed to restrain imports while other steps were taken to strengthen the economy and the balance of payments. It was our intention to keep the charge under review.
We have now decided that enough progress is being made to enable us to reduce the charge after it has been in operation for six months. The rate will accordingly be reduced from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. on all the goods subject to the charge entered with the Customs on or after 27th April.
The Government believe that this notice of a reduction next April will remove uncertainty and will confirm that it is not our policy to rely on the charge as a permanent feature of our economic arrangements. We have been in close touch with Commonwealth and other Governments affected both bilaterally and in international organisations.

Mr. Heath: Is the Chancellor aware that the announcement of a 5 per cent. reduction in the surcharge will, of course, give satisfaction to our trading partners in the Commonwealth, E.F.T.A., and elsewhere?
The right hon. Gentleman says that enough progress is being made to enable us to reduce the surcharge after it has been in operation for six months, which indicates a remarkable degree of foresight which has not been characteristic of the Government so far. As the Board of Trade, in its last statement, said that the great reduction in imports was due to raw materials and foodstuffs and not the surcharge, what evidence is there that it is having an effect?
Following from that, what is the point of delaying the reduction until April,

which, if the Chancellor is still hoping to reduce imports by then, gives a clear indication to both exporters and importers that they should wait until that date, and then we shall have imports rushing in? What is the point of having such a date? The Chanceller says that this is being done while other steps are being taken to strengthen the economy and the balance of payments.
So far, we have had very little indication of the other steps to strengthen the economy in the longer term, although I realise that he will be making another statement about that in a moment. Welcome as the 5 per cent. reduction is, does it not bear all the marks of a very unhappy compromise as a result of the internal differences of the Government?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman asked what evidence there is of the effect of the charge on imports. If he will look at the trade statistics he will see that in the November to January quarter imports of finished manufactures were less by 4 per cent. than in the previous quarter, semi-manufactures were less by 7 per cent. and chemicals less by 9 per cent. I give those as illustrations of the trend. The right hon. Gentleman will also have noticed, if he has looked at the figures, that exports are 2·3 per cent. up on the previous quarter. In our view, that is sufficient indication of the way in which things are moving to enable us to say to our Commonwealth, E.F.T.A. and other trading allies that we think we should be in a position by April to put this reduction into effect without adverse effects on our balance of payments.
However, I must tell the House, and I hope that this will be clearly understood, that no one should assume that our balance of payments is yet in a satisfactory position. It is not. It will be a long haul before we overtake the £800 million deficit that we inherited.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the reasons for the delay. Through the time needed for consultation, there has been a great deal of speculation, and we thought it best, in all the circumstances, to make an advance notification so as to lay that speculation to rest.
As to the differences in the Government, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that they are nothing like the differences which exist between the candidates for the Tory leadership.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the imposition of the original surcharge of 15 per cent. was one of the solutions which he inherited from the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)? Can he say whether in the plans that were left by the right hon. Member for Barnet for imposing the surcharge there was any estimate of the length of period for which the imposition would have to be carried on?

Mr. Callaghan: There is always a scrupulous adherence to the view that the incoming Administration does not see the activities of its predecessor. Perhaps that was just as well in this case. I can only rely upon the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), and I assume that it was because of that that he has now been removed to the sphere of foreign affairs.

Mr. Grimond: First, while we greatly welcome the reduction, and hope that it will lead fairly soon to the abolition of the import charge altogether, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give an assurance that the effect of the announcement now to take effect some time ahead will not be that imports are postponed and will pour into the country later? Secondly, he says that the trend is satisfactory, but is he satisfied that if the import charge is reduced no other measures need be taken to restore the balance of payments position?

Mr. Callaghan: We have considered the first point very carefully, naturally. On balance, I think that the trends that we have seen provide evidence that there will be only a little change in the general trend as a result of the advance announcement. If I had thought that it would be substantial, I should not have made the announcement now. However, I think that when one analyses the various factors, the effect is likely to be small. I do not think that the reduction to 10 per cent. from 15 per cent. will adversely affect the position; but I must say that we shall need to reinforce the situation in regard to the balance of payments before we can hope to be in the clear.

Mr. William Clark: In view of the marginal advantages that we may have got from the imposition of the surcharge, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is worth the loss of confidence

that we have suffered because we have broken an international agreement? Could the right hon. Gentleman go further in answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)? Will there not be an upsurge in imports in April now that the right hon. Gentleman has announced the date for the reduction? If he does not think there will be, why does he not cancel the 5 per cent. now?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that there will be an upsurge. I said that we had looked at this as carefully as we could, and I think that there will be some small adjustments. But the charge was never intended to be anything more than marginal in the first place. What we hoped to save over a whole year was only about £240 million worth of imports in relation to a total import bill of £5,000 million, so it is wrong to talk about upsurges in this context.
I have every reason to believe that my announcement will be greeted with a great deal of satisfaction by those who felt that they had not been adequately consulted in the first place, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will go out of their way, when talking to their friends abroad, to make it clear that it was a very difficult decision that we had to take, and that we have tried to do our best to consult everyone's interests, including those of our own people.

Sir F. Bennett: Does the Chancellor think that none of us has read what has been said overseas by our E.F.T.A. partners? We all know that one spokesman after another has said that if some such change as this is not made E.F.T.A. will break up. The right hon. Gentleman will have to make another humiliating statement in a few months' time, or E.F.T.A. will break up then.

Mr. Callaghan: That is, of course, a very helpful supplementary question! What we are trying to do is to bring the charge down as we see our balance of payments moving nearer to a balance. That has always been our intention from the first. I hope that our effort to salvage the situation that existed will not be described as a humiliating experience, because, if so, I know who is responsible for it.

Mr. loan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend consider making representations to those trading organisations which increased their prices when the charge was imposed to reduce prices when the charge is reduced?

Mr. Callaghan: I have examined this carefully. In fact, a very large number of people absorbed the charge and did not pass it on. I am grateful to them for doing so. I hope that the remainder, who did not do so, will take my hon. Friend's words to heart and reduce their prices as swiftly as they put them up.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this without a Question.

SUPPLY EXPENDITURE, 1965–66

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, for making two statements in one day, but with your permission, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement now about Supply expenditure in 1965–66.
The House will recall that in my Budget statement of 11th November last I said, with reference to public expenditure, that the Government's first objective was to get the deployment of economic resources right. The presentation of the Vote on Account affords me an opportunity to report on progress.
The Vote on Account, covering the Civil Estimates and the Defence (Central) Estimate, is being published this afternoon; the Defence Estimates and the Defence White Paper will be published tomorrow. The total estimated Supply expenditure in 1965–66 is £7,134 million, an increase of £585 million, or 8·9 per cent. over the Budget Estimates for the current year. Of this, £247 million, or 3·8 per cent., is attributable to increases in prices. The figure of 8·9 per cent. compares with increases in the Budget Estimates in the three previous years of 6·7 per cent., 9·4 per cent. and 8·2 per cent., respectively.
The Defence Budget Estimates, at £2,120 million, will show an increase of £121 million. In real terms, this represents an increase of 2·3 per cent. over 1964–65 as against a comparable increase of 5·5 per cent. in the previous year. We attach a high priority to checking the

rise in the Defence budget; the Estimates will show that we have made a start. Moreover, defence expenditure bears heavily upon the balance of payments, and this aspect is the subject of a special review. The needs of our Forces must be met at a cost which the country can afford and the Defence White Paper will explain the measures we are taking to achieve this.
The Estimates show an increase over last year although they have been severely pruned. In large part, they are the outcome of a long series of decisions going back over a period of years during the time when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. My colleagues and I are determined to cut out unnecessary spending, but because most policy decisions imply a long-term programme of spending Government expenditure cannot be reshaped at short notice. As we made clear in the Statement on the Economic Situation which was issued on 26th October last, it is the Government's view that the expenditure programmes which we inherited do not provide adequately for the nation's economic or social needs and we intend to reshape them.
Moreover, the examination shows that the commitments involved in these Estimates were not related by the previous Administration to any plan for making the most of the nation's economic capacities and thus of the capacity to finance them. It is the Government's task to plan the purposive use of our economic resources as a whole, in order to secure, first, that total expenditure both public and private matches the resources that can be made available, and, second, that within the total there is a proper balance between the requirements of the public and private sectors. This means that the public sector may need to absorb a larger share of our gross national product than it does today. But the growth of public expenditure must be effectively controlled so that social and economic priorities can be duly secured in the National Economic Development Plan which the Government are preparing.
We have accordingly been considering the problem of planning the longer-term course not only of Central Government expenditure, but of the total expenditure of the whole public sector. A


final decision on the details of this will be reached when the plan has been drawn up. Meanwhile, the Government have decided that the growth of public sector expenditure between 1964–65 and 1969–70, excluding the investment of the nationalised industries, will be related to the prospective increase in national production, which in our present judgment means limiting the average increase in public sector expenditure, taking one year with another, to 4¼ per cent. a year at constant prices. This will mean a corresponding containment of the rise in private sector expenditure. Only as a nation succeeds in raising the annual rate of production can public and private expenditure be increased.
These decisions will provide a sound base for our policies for modernising and expanding the national resources. They will also permit the progressive development of our economic and social policies, because expenditure will be realistically related to our capacity to embark upon new plans.

Mr. Heath: I am sure that the whole House feels that the right hon. Gentleman need not apologise for making a second statement on a matter of such importance as this. Where we differ from him is in his saying at the beginning that this was an opportunity to report on progress. The statement in fact describes little more than what he himself has described already in his Budget speeches and in the White Paper which came out very soon after the Government took office and to which he referred again today. I have a number of questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
According to his statement, a decision about public expenditure must wait until a plan has been produced—and we know the difficulties about producing plans, particularly those to which this Government have set their hand. This means delay, although the right hon. Gentleman himself has just said that the question of obtaining exports needs action to reinforce it, to use his own words. The statement lacks any description of what action he is taking now to reinforce the need for exports which he has so emphasised.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman points out, the need for public expenditure to take the larger sector and

for private expenditure to take the smaller. How is this to be achieved—by increased taxation, or are there to be measures for increased savings?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman recall that, whereas he wants further measures against private sector expenditure, this means productive expenditure as well as consumption expenditure and that both are already subject to the 7 per cent. Bank Rate and the credit squeeze? I will be grateful if he will deal with these points.

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should congratulate him on the assumption of his new responsibilities.
As regards the question whether decisions must wait until the plan is produced, the broad programme is, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will recall, that Departments have to start now, at this season, preparing next year's Estimates. The purpose of this decision is to inform them that they will be required to plan on an overall basis on the lines that I have indicated. That is why I thought it necessary to give the House the information now.
In due course, as the detailed plan moves to completion in the summer—not the outline which I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs will be able to produce fairly soon—it will, I hope, be possible to marry the proposals contained here with the proposals he hopes to put forward in relation to the planning of our national resources as a whole, and adjustments can he made if necessary.
This statement was not concerned with the stimulation of exports. I remind the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) that the export rebate is worth to one industry alone more than £10 million. A review is now taking place of other measures which, we have been told, cannot be put into force, but which we want to examine so as to satisfy ourselves about them, before we accept a policy of defeatism towards the further stimulation of exports.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how the private sector would be contained. He was quite right. His right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) told us a year ago that unless we could get a higher rate of savings it must mean


a higher rate of taxation, on the basis of the expenditure proposals put forward by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power. Apart from stimulation of the economic resources, which is the whole purpose of the plan on which we are embarking, these are the only ways in which to meet the necessary social expenditure.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to make a statement about the Bank Rate and the credit squeeze this afternoon.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this continual rise in the Estimates is extremely disturbing and can be carried through only if there is a compensating rise in productivity? Is he also aware that what was found lacking in his statement was any mention of measures to increase productivity? Will he at least give an assurance that there is no intention to cut private sector investment which is fundamental to an increase in productivity?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is asking for rather much. I am making a statement on the Vote on Account about public expenditure, not covering the whole of economic policy. It is not for me today to discuss these most important matters to which the right hon. Gentleman calls attention. However, as he has asked the specific question, it is our desire and intention to see that private investment is maintained at a high level, provided that it is productive investment. This is the important point and it is the distinction which must always be drawn between various types of private and public expenditure.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration that, while many of us on this side of the House welcome the pruning of defence expenditure which has been done we are, nevertheless, bitterly disappointed that the cuts have not been greater, for, if they had been, much more money would have been available for the necessary social services, housing, and so on, which our people need?

Mr. Callaghan: I suggest that my hon. Friend reads the Defence White Paper tomorrow. Perhaps I should not anticipate that, except to say that he will find

that a full review is being made of the nation's defence commitments in every direction in order to see what is the proper relationship between those commitments and our capacity to carry the defence burden. I must say to my hon. Friend that this review is fundamental, but it must take time. We cannot hope to get short-term solutions to such a longterm problem as defence expenditure.

Sir H. Butcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that rationing is not to be reintroduced?

Mr. Callaghan: If that is the best contribution which the National Liberal Party can make, no wonder it is in decline.

Mr. Zilliacus: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the difficulty of reducing defence expenditure in the short term, but will he give an assurance that the Government stick to the Prime Minister's declaration of 16th December, that it is not merely a question of getting value for money, but that there is an imperative necessity actually to cut defence expenditure and to make corresponding changes of international policy? Does he further recognise that we do not have a long time in which to make a drastic reduction in defence expenditure?

Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate the need for an urgent review, because I have no doubt from my examination that if the policies being followed up to the moment were to be continued, for aircraft and in other respects, the defence burden on the country would become quite insupportable in a few years' time. We have already made a start on pruning in order to get the necessary redeployment of skilled men and resources to enable the export industries to go ahead. This is what we need to do and this is what we are determined to do.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger of using up necessary short-term investments with a high rate of long-term Government spending? Would he, therefore, see that the same incentives are given to business and personal savings as is the case in the rest of the world except behind the Iron Curtain?

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot accept the proposition as the hon. Gentleman formulates it. It depends on the value of the


investment and it does not matter whether it is private or public. For example, a great deal of public money put into research in the computer industry would still be a very good investment, although it was public expenditure and not private. In so far as benefits are transfer payments from one section of the population to another, they involve no additional call upon our resources. We have to be clear about this. Public expenditure is not necessarily bad, nor private expenditure good. With both, it depends to what they are applied.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Chancellor say whether his figures take account of any repayment of the £4 million which is owed to the Treasury by Ferranti's? What is happening to that money?

Mr. Callaghan: Negotiations with Ferranti's are going on and I doubt whether the very prudent officials in the Treasury would take account of a debt which has not yet been paid.

Mr. Heath: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point in his statement? He spoke of the public sector, excluding the nationalised industries, being limited to a 4¼ per cent. increase. Does that apply to the calendar year 1965–66, which does not appear to be compatible with the first part of his statement, in which it is said that the Estimates are to be reduced to this level for the coming calendar year? Was that an indication for the public sector for the next calendar year, while the plan is being formulated? Why are the nationalised industries excluded from the public sector?

Mr. Callaghan: The reason for excluding them is that we thought that there should be an investment budget as a whole, because investment in the nationalised industries is and should be productive of a return. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right about the dates—this applies for the next year and not for the coming year.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must now pass from this subject.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Warbey: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a possible breach of privilege and possibly a wider contempt of Parliament of which I have given notice to you and also, because he is the editor and publisher, if not the author, of certain of the writings complained of, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).
A number of writings defamatory of my activities as a Member of Parliament and seeking to deter me from carrying out my duties as a Member of Parliament have appeared in the Press in the last two or three days. For the convenience of the House, I will submit in evidence extracts in writing from last Friday's issue of the Spectator and short extracts from today's issue of the Daily Telegraph.
The passage in the Spectator reads as follows:
The Spectator, February 19, 1965.

Views of the Week
Warbey's Wanderings

On January 4, Mr. William Warbey, Labour M.P. for Ashfield, and his wife arrived in Hanoi the capital of North Vietnam where they were greeted at Gia-lam airport by Mr. Tran Xuan Bach, Secretary-General of the Central Committee of the Vietnam Fatherland Front, and other members of that body.

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Warbey: If hon. Members desire to hear what I am reading, they know what course of action to take. The extract goes on:
For the next ten days they stayed at the Thong Nhat Hotel as guests of the Front. In the course of a television programme (Dateline, February 9), Mr. Warbey himself confirmed that his hotel expenses had been paid by the Vietnam Fatherland Front.
Now, the Vietnam Fatherland Front is a Communist 'front' organisation formed and financed by the Communist regime in North Vietnam, so that it is hard to understand how Mr. Warbey can reconcile his membership of the British Labour Party with his acceptance of the hospitality of such a body. His trip appears more puzzling still in view of the fact that North Vietnam is, at the present time, directing and supplying armed aggression against a friendly state, South Vietnam, and is responsible for the killing of both South Vietnamese and Americans. Moreover, North Vietnam has repeatedly expressed its wholehearted support for Indonesian aggression against a Commonwealth country, Malaysia, in a war in which British soldiers are being killed.


I leave out the following two paragraphs and call attention to the next one:
Mr. Warbey brought back to this country in his baggage a Vietnamese Communist propaganda film, part of which has already been shown on B.B.C. Television (Tonight, February 8). He himself has not been idle since his arrival in London, for he has published a long letter to The Times and two articles in The Guardian about Vietnam. In addition, he has appeared in three television programmes (Panorama, February 8; Dateline, February 9; and Arena, February 11) and has spoken in sound broadcasts in the B.B.C. General Overseas Service. He is among the Labour M.Ps. who tabled a motion in the House of Commons on February 10 to bring pressure on their leaders to change present British policy on Vietnam.
I now quote a short extract—

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has been reading from the Spectator, which is published on a Thursday evening and is generally available on Friday morning. Should it therefore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should not be allowing the hon. Gentleman to address me unless I had considered that point.

Mr. Warbey: The other passage which I would wish to submit in evidence is from today's issue of the Daily Telegraph, 22nd February, 1965:
Privilege' Issue in B.B.C. Dispute
Daily Telegraph TV and Radio Staff
Mr. William Warbey, Labour M.P. for Ashfield, Nottingham, refused to comment last night on a controversy over a radio programme on Vietnam as it was 'connected with a subject which might be raised today as a matter of Parliamentary privilege.'
Later, the same article states:
Mr. Crozier said yesterday: 'I was not surprised when I heard that Mr. Warbey would not appear with me in view of what happened in a Dateline programme the previous night, when I asked him who had paid his hotel bill at Hanoi. He said it was the Vietnam Fatherland Front. This is a Communist organisation. Several M.Ps. have been their guest in the past. I accept the view that the programme the B.B.C. put on was not unfair, but the fact is that two experts on Vietnam were kept out because of Mr. Warbey's objections.'
The passages which I complain of, by innuendo and insinuation and the false association of ideas, are likely to convey the impression, and appear intended to convey the impression, that because I have received hospitality from a foreign Government or political organisation in the course of travelling abroad to obtain information for use in Parliamentary debates I am not a witness of truth, but

a bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation. There are also reflections upon my loyalty to my Parliamentary oath and the political party which promoted my election to Parliament.
The references in the Spectator article to a Motion tabled for debate in the House and in the Daily Telegraph to other Members of Parliament who have been the guests of foreign organisations in the past constitute, in my submission, a reflection on the conduct of several, and perhaps of all, Members of Parliament. If this kind of thing is persisted in it may well have the effect of deterring Members of Parliament in general from travelling abroad in search of information for use in future Parliamentary debates or from giving the House a faithful and honest account of what they have seen and heard.
I ask you to rule, Sir, that a prima facie case has been made out.

Copies of newspapers handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's complaint and rule upon it tomorrow.

BILLS PRESENTED

HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND)

Bill to make further provision for the economic and social development of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Ross; supported by Mr. Willis, and Mr. Niall MacDermot; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

CARAVAN SITES (No. 2)

Bill to make provision for written agreements between operators of caravan sites and caravan residents; to make illegal the charging of any premium for the grant, renewal or continuance of such agreements; to provide that copies of such agreements shall be furnished to the local authority; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Eric Lubbock; supported by Mr. Norman Dodds, and Mrs. Shirley Williams; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 26th February and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]

NORTHERN IRELAND

4.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): The Government thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I opened this debate on Northern Ireland and dealt generally with certain topics which are of interest, in particular, to Northern Ireland Members. As the economic situation in Northern Ireland would, I anticipate, loom large in the debate, it was thought that it would be for the assistance of the House if my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs, replied to it. Hon. Members will thus know, when they make their contributions, the general views of the Government on particular topics under discussion, and they will be able to speak in the knowledge that my hon. Friend will be prepared to deal with the economic aspects of he present situation in Northern Ireland.
Before dealing with the various topics, I should like to make some reference to the meeting which took place on 14th January, 1965, at Stormont and on 9th February, at Dublin, between Captain O'Neill, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and Mr. Lemass, the Taoisach of the Irish Republic. I think that it is true that no such meeting has taken place between the leaders of the two countries since as far back as 1925. I feel that the whole House would wish to welcome this development—a significant stage in the improvement of relations between the two countries—and to offer congratulations to the two Prime Ministers.
Looking at the economic situation for a moment, hon. Members will be aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland remained at the obstinately high level of 6·6 per cent. in 1964. It is to be noted, nevertheless, that this is the lowest percentage rate since 1956. Hon. Members will have studied with care the implications of Professor Thomas Wilson's survey and the recent announcement by the Northern Ireland Government in a White Paper that the Government had accepted the main recommendations in the survey. The consideration of this Report and White Paper will be the first task to be tackled by the Northern Ireland Economic Council.
I should like to express pleasure that it has proved possible to overcome the initial obstacle to the setting up of the Economic Council in the relations between the Northern Ireland Government and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Trade Unions are repreesented on the Economic Council, as also are representatives of industry, agriculture, tourism, and so on. The House will perhaps know that arrangements have already been made to ensure a close relationship with the machinery for regional planning councils in Great Britain.
If I may turn to particular topics, I wish that I were in a position to give the House al this stage more information about the situation with regard to Short Bros. and Harland Limited. My hon. Friend will develop it in somewhat more detail when he makes his speech, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the debate, but I should like to say something about it at the outset.
Obviously, the effect of the cancellation of subcontracting work on the HS681 is a matter of great concern to Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members will be well aware than on 2nd February last my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State said in the House that the Government had decided to appoint consultants to carry out a comprehensive review of the company's potential and to advise on making the best use of the labour force and the other assets of the company.
The consultants' review will be primarily concerned with the scope for redeploying Short's resources. Indeed, the Wilson Report had already recommended that the two Governments should set up an inquiry into the scope for diversification at the firm and the Northern Ireland Government's White Paper on the Wilson Report stated in paragraph 56 that
the prospects of further diversification are being explored".
The present position is that Mr. Catherwood, the Chief Industrial Adviser to the Department of Economic Affairs, has been asked to take charge of this comprehensive review and, as the House probably knows, he visited Belfast on


19th February to have a general discussion of the situation with the company. The consultants have not yet been appointed, but I hope that the House will accept that this comprehensive investigation of the company's potential represents the most constructive set up that can be taken in the best long-term interests of the firm and emphasises the importance that the Government attach to the place of Shorts in the economy of Northern Ireland.
The position of the company has to be considered against the background of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation in the House on 9th February. My right hon. Friend then said that the best future for the firm might have to be largely outside the aircraft industry. Since these two statements to which I have referred, the Ministry of Aviation has been urgently considering what aircraft work might be provided for the firm to tide it over the period between the rundown of its present work, which will begin at about the end of 1965, and the time when other work might be available as a result of the comprehensive review. Unfortunately, there is no Royal Air Force requirement for additional Belfast aircraft.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said on 9th February—and I quote his words:
A firm depending largely on sub-contract work in the industry, yet absolutely vital to the employment picture of a particular area, is not really in a happy position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 237.]
What I can assure the House is that the Government will do all they can to sustain employment at Shorts, but in the present state of the aircraft industry as a whole it would be unrealistic to expect the firm to support itself indefinitely by aircraft work alone.
I should like to turn to another individual topic, and that is the question of the project for a new Belfast dry dock. On 14th July, 1964, if I may recapitulate recent history, my predecessor announced that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners had, in the last week of June, 1964, obtained the report of the engineering consultants whom, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Government, they had engaged to prepare a detailed survey and estimate for the dry dock. The report showed that,

in view of the geological and other considerations, it should be possible to construct at Belfast within the level of available finance a dock of 150 ft. by 1,000 ft., which is, of course, an extremely large dock. Such a dock would be capable of taking vessels of approximately 150,000 d.w.t.
The report also showed that the difference in cost between a dock of this size and a smaller dock capable of being extended is much less than had previously been supposed and that the cost of future extension works to increase the capacity of a smaller dock would outweigh the initial difference in capital costs.
My predecessor went on to say that, in view of that report, Her Majesty's Government saw no reason why the Belfast Harbour Commissioners should not be authorised to invite tenders for the construction of a dock of this very large size. He stressed that a final decision to begin the construction work of a dock of this size could not be undertaken until tenders were received, at which stage questions of size in relation to cost and other financial aspects would naturally need to be looked at afresh.
It is perhaps appropriate to add that the provision of the dry dock has now assumed a special significance, in view of the expansion undertaken by Harland and Wolff in the repair and conversion side of their work to create additional employment to counter the falling employment on new construction by which shipyards in general are at present affected.
To bring the account up to date, the position is that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have now asked firms who wish to tender to provide certain further information. Tenders have not yet been called for and it is unlikely that they will be received much before May of this year. I am sorry that I cannot add at present to the information which I have given with regard to the present situation of the dry dock project. As my predecessor said, when the tenders have been received questions of size in relation to cost and other financial aspects will have to be examined before any final decision can be taken.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Will the information include tenders for a slightly larger dry dock? I believe that it has been suggested that one to take vessels of 160,000 tons would be more suitable.

Sir F. Soskice: I know that the suggestion has been made. I cannot add to what I have said about that at the moment. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Department of Economic Affairs has heard the question and will see whether he can go further than I have done. Beyond saying that I know that the suggestion is current, I do not think that it would be right to add anything. I have particularly to bear in mind that any-think I say will be studied, and I should be most anxious not to give a misleading impression as to the present situation.
Another topic on which I cannot give very much information, but on which I know that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are particularly interested, is the proposed new large aircraft carrier, and the possibility that the contract for this vessel may go to Harlard and Wolff. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Defence told the House on a previous occasion, he will be making a full statement about the carrier when the Government review of defence policy has been completed.
Meanwhile, present plans are based on ordering this ship in 1966, in which case tenders would be invited from shipbuilders in the early part of that year. As my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy told the House last week, tenders to build a large warship are invited from all shipbuilders who have the necessary facilities and experience and who want to be considered.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) has from time to time expressed anxiety that the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry might be closed down and I should like to say a word about that. He was informed by the previous Government, when he put Questions on this topic from time to time, and he has been told by the present Government that the anti-submarine training arrangements in general were under review, but that no proposal

affecting the Joint Anti-Submarine School had been made. As recently as 28th January the hon. Gentleman was informed by my Department that I should be consulted if any such proposal was made. I think that I should bring that information up to date.
I understand that the review of the anti-submarine training arrangements being conducted by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy has disclosed that there would be some professional and technical advantages in moving the Joint Anti-Submarine School from Londonderry, but I should emphasise that these considerations are not the only ones. The social and economic effects of such a move upon Londonderry and Northern Ireland as a whole will have to be taken into account as well. I assure the House that they will be most carefully weighed before any decision is taken as to the future of the school. The result is that it must necessarily be some little time before any final conclusion can be reached. That is as far as I can go on that topic at the moment.
I think that those are the broad matters on which hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are particularly anxious to know what is the present position.
I turn now to a topic relating to agriculture. I refer to the 1960 potato deficiency payment. For some considerable time this has been a matter of controversy on which strong views are held. As hon. Members who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies know, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I, have been considering the question of the disposal of Northern Ireland's share of the 1960 potato crop deficiency payment. The matter has a long history, and though we have been anxious to resolve the difficulties as soon as possible, we have not been able to formulate our proposals until now.
I am very glad to tell the House that my colleagues and I have now agreed on new proposals for the disposal of the money and the Minister of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, is being authorised to reopen discussions with the Ulster Farmers' Union with a view to obtaining its agreement to what we have in mind. I do not think that it would


be right to describe the proposals in detail at the moment, but I can say that my colleagues and I are intent on solving the long-standing problem on a realistic basis.
I am sure that hon. Members from Northern Ireland will join me in hoping that the end of this protracted dispute is at last in sight. I do not want to prejudice discussions by saying too much about our proposals, but I can say that they allow for the distribution to the growers of a substantial part of the money. I hope that will bring satisfaction to those hon. Members who are particularly interested in this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Henry Clark: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the Ulster Farmers' Union is by no manner of means opposed to the policy of support payments for which it had been intended that this money should be used. The union has made its opposition almost entirely as a point of principle. Hon. Members on this side of the House will be very anxious that any money left over after distribution to the growers should be used for a policy of support payments in future.

Sir F. Soskice: There will be a portion of the money left over. I have certainly done my best to follow the controversy and will have in mind what the hon. Member has said. I should not like to commit myself further, but I hope that the broad point of principle is resolved and the controversy can be laid to rest.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I do not wish to press the Minister too closely, but he said that a proportion of the money will be left over. May I ask whether the majority of the money will be paid to the growers?

Sir F. Soskice: The phrase to which I should prefer to limit myself is this, that the distribution to the growers will be of a substantial part of the money. I hope that will be thought to be an adequate response to the question put to me.
This is a day on which hon. Members who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies will wish particularly to intervene

and to put points of view which occur to them as causing concern. The Government thought the best way to initiate the debate would be by a comparatively short statement from me on particular outstanding matters, and this I have made.
As I have said, my hon. Friend will try to deal in more detail with matters upon which hon. Members particularly fasten when, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he winds up the debate. I have tried to open the debate by way of a general statement. I hope that hon. Members will think that of some assistance to them in putting points of view which they would wish to express in relation to matters in which they are particularly interested.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: We are very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary should have seen fit himself to open this debate. He has often listened to us in private, very courteously, and we are glad that he should take the opportunity to speak in the House on Northern Ireland matters.
We are glad to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is present, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). He has a direct responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs. I recall that, long ago, another hon. Gentleman of Welsh descent who interested himself in Irish affairs also bore the name of Thomas. I do not know whether it was his disposition, like that of the Joint Under Secretary, which caused him to be known as "Silken Thomas." Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman in question, for his participation in Irish affairs, lost his head. We look to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to keep his.
This debate should not be regarded as a regional matter of limited application. For the problems of such areas as Northern Ireland and even more perhaps the opportunities available there are central to the whole question of national economic development. I hope that the First Secretary of State particularly, who has overriding responsibilities, realises that, because he has, after all, referred to Northern Ireland as a hitherto neglected area; implying that he did not intend to allow it to be neglected in future.
I hope that this knowledge is percolating down through Departments. It has been said ad nauseam—and it is true—that one of the major problems facing Britain is to make more effective use of our human resources. There has been much talk of concentrating manpower where it would be most effectively utilised. That is important, but there is, of course, a corollary to that which N.E.D.C. has constantly pointed out—if we are to step up our rate of national growth we cannot afford to waste unexploited reservoirs of manpower in areas like Northern Ireland.
What we are talking about this evening is not only the needs of Northern Ireland, but the needs of the whole nation. In Northern Ireland, the people are in no suppliant mood, and over the last two years, the great leap forward which the community has made has been noticeable. Plans have been laid to transform the whole social and economic scene. The place is far from being a depressed area. Indeed, it is humming with activity. I should be out of order if I were to discuss this and it is tantalising that I cannot do so. The Mathew Report, the Benson Report, and the Lockwood Report have been made, and action is going forward on them. In so far as any community can lift itself up by its own bootstraps, Northern Ireland is doing that.
It is true, as the Home Secretary mentioned, that unemployment of 6·9 per cent, is high, wasteful, and sometimes tragic. There has been great success in the diversification of industry policy, but, impressive though that has been, it has been masked to some extent by the uncertain prospects for some of the established industries.
May I just for a moment talk about shipbuilding? Here we are aware that the Northern Ireland Government have agreed that the inquiry into the British shipbuilding industry should be extended to Ulster. The Belfast yard has been streamlined and modernised, prefabrication techniques have been introduced, the harbour force has been consolidated and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the dry dock construction project is out to tender, or at least almost out to tender. All these are hopeful signs, but we all know that the entire British shipbuilding industry is facing intense and even dangerous foreign competition.
It is just as important to Belfast as to anywhere else that the Government should seek, as far as possible, to ensure that, in every respect, they accord to British shipbuilding financial and other support on at least as generous a scale as that which foreign Governments give to their shipbuilding industry. We hear nowadays of rationalisation and concentration. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, what we are quite certain of is that it is essential that Belfast should remain a major shipbuilding yard, as it has done for 100 years.
I should like to say a word about the aircraft industry. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman observed, there was and is grave concern about the cancellation of the HS681. This is a very serious matter for us. We regard the Government as being under a moral obligation to seek, by every possible means, to maintain the level of the labour force of Shorts up to 1970. That is the policy as adumbrated by successive Ministers of Aviation. We also believe—I think that this is common ground—that the levels of which I have been speaking can only be attained by bringing more aircraft work there. It seems to me that the Ministry of Aviation has, in recent weeks, seemed to think that the future of Shorts might lie largely, though not completely, outside aircraft work.
I think that we ought to reserve judgment on that until we have heard something more about what Mr. Catherwood and his consultants have to say on the subject of diversification. I think, however, that it is fair to make one or two points about that, because it must not be assumed that diversification in Shorts is a blindingly brilliant discovery of this Government. Indeed, Shorts themselves have been diversifying hard for years. They have made analogue computers, sweepers, and, I think, even milk churns. That is diversification, although the bulk of the labour force must inevitably be employed, for the moment, on aircraft and missiles.
Whatever may happen in future, if it goes the way the Government think it should go, I hope that they will consider as a possible industry in years to come the manufacture of control automation equipment, which, I am told, would give very considerable employment in that part of the world. There has been


talk, rather loose talk perhaps, that they might manufacture machine tools, but I think that anyone who has been to Shorts —many hon. Members have—will realise that this would require radical changes in the situation there and would require a great deal more than mere capital, welcome as that would be.
In considering Shorts, I think that the most important thing to say is that it is essential to preserve the nucleus of high technical competence which is of such value to the economic development of Northern Ireland as a whole. It would be ironic if this Government, who rode into power as crusaders in technology, should, as an act of policy, extinguish the brightest technological light in Ulster.
I come now to the Wilson Report. The Report is not, as the House might think, the first account of the 100 days, nor even Shakespeare's "Chronicles of Wasted Time," but a most valuable document which is a blue-print for planning up to 1970, produced by Professor Thomas Wilson, who holds the Chair of Economics at Glasgow. Northern Ireland has accepted it almost in its entirety, and that is good, but for the acceptance to be effective, the Northern Ireland Government will need the backing of Her Majesty's Government here in Britain. Because of the financial relationships between the two Governments, the Northern Ireland Government will have to come over and will discuss with the major spending Departments—the Treasury and, I suppose, the Department of Economic Affairs—what is to be done.
I make this plea, through the Home Secretary, to the rest of the Government: do not clamp down on innovation and imagination; do not force every proposal or every project into the existing United Kingdom mould. Northern Ireland has special problems which require special treatment. I think that it is well known in this House—I concede it at once—that we have had special treatment in the past. I do not think that there is any need any longer, if if there ever was, to be furtive or mealy-mouthed about this. I think that it is accepted that under-developed areas of the country need different treatment from congested areas. Perhaps I could say that there should be a sensible

diversification as between development areas. After all, it is well known that Scotland has twice the national rate of unemployment and that Northern Ireland has sometimes twice the Scottish rate.
The Government should judge Northern Ireland's problems on their merits, without looking over their shoulders all the time to see what demands are greater elsewhere. That seems to me to be very important. As an example, the labour training and retraining proposals in the Wilson Report might be considered. They are flexible, imaginative and, above all, expensive, but I hope that the Government will help the Northern Ireland Government in every way to take bold steps forward in that direction. For the cash social services, it is true that Northern Ireland goes step-by-step with the United Kingdom, but if Northern Ireland is ever to play the part which she can play, it may be that her policies must, in certain respects, be in advance of those of Great Britain.
The United Kingdom itself must look again, perhaps, at its own regional policies and decide whether they have sharp enough teeth to redress the geographical imbalance of the economy. Is the location of industry policy really strong enough as it stands? Fiscal policy may still be used as an instrument of regional policy. In one particular respect I should like to summarise a passage from the Wilson Report. This is a point which I should like the Government to consider, if they are not already doing so. The Wilson Report says that the seemingly generous grants towards the capital expenses of industry in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, are greatly reduced in effective value because the value of the grants is deducted from sums allowed against tax in the form of investment, initial and ordinary depreciation allowances. Is the margin of advantage enough? On the face of it, it seems a good deal less than was generally supposed.
We are told that a high priority is given to the effective use of manpower, and obviously it is desirable that the demand should be spread and that we should discourage manpower hoarding. I commend a suggestion in the Wilson Report that a selective payroll tax should


be used in congested areas only. I note from a reply by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that he emerged from his pre-Budget coyness enough to say that he would look at the suggestion. I certainly hope that it will be looked at.
May I say a word about agriculture? The right hon. Gentleman knows the problem in Northern Ireland; he knows that there are still thousands of farmers who are earning less than £500 a year, and that cannot be a satisfactory situation. I will not dwell long on it, because I know that some of my hon. Friends have thoughts on the question of the amalgamation of holdings, on increasing the remoteness grant when it is renewed and even on the possibility of using the increase to encourage the amalgamation of holdings. I was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the 1960 deficiency payment. We shall study carefully what he said, but it seems welcome that the end of this long and intractable problem is in sight.
What else can the Government do to facilitate expansion? What they can do for Northern Ireland is to make certain that they keep a close eye on the cost and standard of supplies and services, particularly as far as the nationalised industries are concerned. It is vital to us that Northern Ireland does not pay one penny more than is necessary, for example, for coal. They could also ensure that sea and air services, whether freight or passenger, are as cheap and efficient as possible. In this connection, it was with great regret that we heard last week that the one competitor on our air services had been rather summarily knocked on the heads This is extremely unfortunate.
The Government can also do something for which Ulster Members have pressed hard in the past: they can see whether there are what I called in a Question adjuncts of Government Departments, or, at any rate, some parts of Government Departments, development centres, research facilities and that kind of thing, which could be moved to Northern Ireland and could work there for the nation, giving valuable employment. The National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride has been of great benefit to the Scottish economy, and we should like to know when we shall get

something like it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us something about that this afternoon.
There is one point which I should like to make about the North-West area of Ulster. It is very important to us that this area, with towns such as Londonderry, Limavady and Strabane, should not he allowed to lag behind the rest of the Province in opportunities of employment for their citizens. Here, the United Kingdom Government can help by realising, as the right hon. Gentleman did realise, the importance of such installations as the Joint Anti-Submarine Training School at Londonderry, the base there and the R.A.F. station there. There are other industries, which could give a good deal of employment in that part of the world, which are dependent upon Government contracts. I hope that all that will be borne in mind. I must warn the Home Secretary that he will hear a lot about the Londonderry naval base in the House until a satisfactory statement has been made about its future.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the visit of Mr. Lemass to Captain O'Neill and the North-South talks, as they have come to be called. We certainly wish to commend the courage and initiative of Captain O'Neill in having thought of that talk and the courage of Mr. Lemass in accepting the invitation to go to Stormont. I think that they were absolutely right. Mr. Lemass has since said that not too great a significance should be read into them, and it is important to note that it is quite certain that they in no way affect the constitutional position of Northern Ireland.
I have spoken largely about the employment position there, and a target has been set by the Wilson Report. We have accepted the challenge of creating 30,000 jobs in manufacturing industry by 1970. That sounds a lot, but there need be no scoffing; it can undoubtedly be done. There is a new spirit of optimism sweeping through most parts of Northern Ireland.
If it is done, then it will be a real contribution to national growth and it will bring relief and security to Ulster homes where that has sometimes been lacking in the past. If the Governments on both sides of the sea are ready to work together, they will find a response in Ulster, and with


that anything is possible. Shaw once wrote:
Some see things as they are and wonder why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?
That, in pursuit of employment, is the spirit of the Ulster people.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am grateful for the opportunity, once more, of taking part in a debate on Northern Ireland because, unlike the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), I believe that changes of great significance to those of us who know Irish history are taking place.
I want to place on record the appreciation of Irish people in this country and those of us who are of Irish descent, of the first, fourth or fifth generations, of the fact that the two Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland and Eire have been able to meet. This is a great departure from the sterile position of bygone days, and I applaud their courage and their statesmanship in doing so. While it must not be over-emphasised, I am quite sure that it would be a great mistake to read too little into the meeting of those two leaders of the Irish Nation.
President Kennedy quoted Shaw on his last visit to Ireland, and he also said that there "are no permanent barriers". I am one of those who believe that there are no permanent barriers in this world—of colour, creed, or anything else; and I live and hope for the day when there will be no permanent barriers of any kind between the Irish people.

Mr. Henry Clark: When the hon. Member makes that statement does he envisage the Union Jack going up in Dublin or the Tricolour going up in Belfast? It would be useful to find out.

Mr. Mahon: I will leave that interjection to the adjudication of the Irish people. I suggest that all of us should say to those two leaders who have taken this initial step that we hope that the prosperity of Ireland, the peace of Ireland and the understanding and tolerance of the Irish people has been enhanced by their endeavours.
I hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) will be sorry that he intervened, because my next step is to appeal to those people in

any part of Ireland who believe in an extreme approach. I feel that they must try to achieve whatever their just and proper endeavours are by the right means and by peaceful and dignified means, and that they can only retard the progress of Ireland by indulgence in these extremities which are sometimes in the worst possible taste and which are against the best interests of Ireland.
There is already in the world—and every day in the House we hear about it—too much hatred. A little more expression of love would go a long way and the world is looking for just that. Hatred can only bring bitterness and from bitterness grows fear. It is out of fear that we get the sort of extremities I have in mind. I hope that people, not only in Northern Ireland, but in Eire, America, Australia, England and throughout the world, will show others—particularly those who hold silly prejudices—that their ends can be better served if we all behave ourselves in a proper and right manner.
I say that as one who, like many hon. Members, served his country with his brothers; who served his country and no other. I hope that there will be more love in the world so that the bitterness and fears that now exist in many parts of it can be removed. I hope that the desire to achieve greater harmony and love throughout the world will be expressed in more speeches today because bitterness of any kind can be got over by the expression of love.
Everyone must agree that an unemployment rate of 6·7 per cent. to 7 per cent. is much too high and must bring with it a great deal of unhappiness for the people of Northern Ireland. I took some comfort from the statement of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State of 2nd February, when he said, referring to Short Brothers and Harland:
We recognise that the abandonment of the HS681 will present that firm, which is largely publicly owned, with a particularly difficult problem …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 10161
After pointing out that Shorts occupied a special place in the economy of Northern Ireland and that it was important that the fullest use should be made of the company's resources, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) pointed out that Shorts and its equipment was suitable only for aircraft construction. I understand the hon. Member's concern for


his constituents and their desire to maintain their employment. I therefore urge the Government to do all they can to maintain full employment in Northern Ireland and to achieve greater diversification, not only at Shorts but elsewhere.
I realise, coming from Liverpool, the gratitude which people have for the new dry dock there. With my knowledge of shipping and shipping matters, I suggest that it might be wise for the Government to consider the establishment of a bigger dock. One with larger dimensions would be extremely useful because we are living at a time when larger and larger ships are being built. Indeed, I hope that Belfast and Liverpool, with their long shipping association, will be able to prosper together in this respect.
It is with some regret that I turn to a subject about which I do not like speaking. Although it is regrettable that I must mention it, it is essential that I should do so. Certain things can be forgotten and it might be convenient for the House to forget some of them sometimes because some matters often seem out of tune, out of colour and out of tradition with the atmosphere of the House today. It may seem out of tune with these things that I must talk about discrimination in Northern Ireland.
It is deplorable that any hon. Member in the House of Commons should even have to suggest that any sort of discrimination of the type I will mention should be going on, particularly since we fought for democracy and for the dignity of the individual. If it is right what people are saying—what the Campaign for Social Justice, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and others are saying—it must be equally deplorable for hon. Members who represent these areas to hear these things because I have never known those hon. Members, when in the House, to show the slightest degree of discrimination. Indeed, I have always found them most generous.
I must mention, however, that somebody in Northern Ireland has said that they have "two faces". I am mentioning this because I feel that it should be said. The hon. Members concerned have always seemed to me to be pleasant in the House. Nevertheless, a member of the Labour Party in Northern Ireland has said that they speak with "two voices".

Captain L. P. S. Orr: rose—

Mr. Mahon: I wish to be brief in this reference. I recently asked the Home Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government to consider what allocation of housing is made in Northern Ireland—

Captain Orr: On a point of order. The hon. Member seems to be going beyond the bounds of an Adjournment debate. As I understand, a debate on the Adjournment is confined to matters which are within the responsibility of Ministers. We would, on a general Motion concerning Northern Ireland, be perfectly happy to debate these matters with the hon. Member and in the tone in which we appreciate he is seeking to raise them. However, on this occasion I am wondering just how far such a discussion would be in order.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Further to that point of order. A similar point of order was raised in a recent Adjournment debate when the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was speaking. It was then ruled that it was in order to raise the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): The question of what is in order in this Adjournment debate is a difficult one. The debate on the Adjournment is very wide but, having said that, it must relate only to matters for which a Minister can be responsible. I thought that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) was trying to argue that the Minister could take some action in the matter about which he was speaking.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Further to that point of order. Even if the Minister concerned were not at the moment responsible, would it not be in order for the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) to argue that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, should be amended to make that Minister responsible?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Matters requiring legislation ought not to be referred to in an Adjournment debate, except incidentally. I hope that hon. Members will allow the hon. Member for Bootle to make his own speech.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)


anticipated my remarks. I was about to make exactly the point which he made. He is always generous and I know that he was endeavouring to be helpful to me. Our Ministers have grave difficulty in applying themselves to these problems and invariably I get the answer that it is a Stormont responsibility. I concur with that view, but I have had information sent to me about the position in Northern Ireland and since we have some responsibility for Northern Ireland here or else we would not be debating the matter now—

Captain Orr: On a point of order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. Member again, but he has just said that he is talking about matters which are within the responsibility of the Government and Parliament of Stormont. I should have thought that if one looked at Erskine May one would see that a debate on the Adjournment rules out matters within the authority of any statutory body—any body set up by this House—and the Parliament of Northern Ireland is such a body. It may be difficult if the hon. Member for Bootle develops his argument into matters within the competence of that Parliament because, in view of the narrowness of the debate, we cannot have a proper discussion of those matters.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Further to that point of order. Perhaps we can clear this matter up once and for all. It is clearly written in the 1920 Act that certain reserve powers lie here with the Home Secretary. One of them is to decide matters of religious discrimination. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will agree with that. I submit, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is in order in what he is saying.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I regret that the House has not allowed the hon. Member for Bootle to continue his speech, so that we may see whether he is going out of order. I understood that when he was interrupted he was saying that he thought that while it might be a matter for Stormont, he was going to argue that it might not be. I suggest that hon. Members should allow the hon. Member to continue.

Mr. Mahon: That is precisely what I am trying to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker— find out where the responsibility lies.
I have communicated with the Home Office and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and what I am putting now is the condition in which certain people in Northern Ireland who are subject to our constitution find themselves because they are not of a particular religious persuasion. I shall not go further with this matter, because I do not like the subject. It is intolerable that any man should have to mention it in these days, but we shall never get anywhere in these islands unless we can score out these acts of discrimination. We know that they are going on.
I love Northern Ireland as much as any one else does. I do not like discrimination. I learned during the war not to see religion or colour—it is much more important to look at a man, and see pain. A good deal of pain has been caused to decent British people, but I will now leave the subject, and not test your patience one moment longer than it should be, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Turning to something a little more pleasant, I was very impressed by some of the statements made by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. He has said that, since Pope John, things have improved tremendously, and that he hopes for better relationships between the Church and his country. It was very generous of him to say that in, I think, a television programme.
I say very sincerely that I am not full of criticism of Northern Ireland, and that there is one thing I like and applaud about it. Captain O'Neill has said that when he talked with Senator Robert Kennedy, in Washington, he had great difficulty in conveying to the Senator the fact that Catholic schools in Northern Ireland are given 65 per cent. grants. That is true. I do not agree with Captain O'Neill that this should be the limit—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now discussing something which is the responsibility of the Stormont.

Mr. Mahon: Then I shall not go much further than that, though I am grateful to have had the opportunity to record it.
On the subject of discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland, this new


Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has said:
… in many cases discrimination is not taking place: in other cases it may be. In many cases it is taking place from both sides.
I agree with that statement and, like Captain O'Neil, I hope that there will be an improvement there very shortly.
Some weeks ago I listened to an Irish air being played at the funeral of the greatest statesman I believe the world has ever seen, and I thought that, to some degree, we sometimes exaggerate our differences. The song was written by the great Irish lyricist, Thomas Moore, for the daughter of John Philpott Curran, the great Irish advocate. The lady was Sarah Curran, and is known throughout Irish history. She was the sweetheart of Robert Emmett. The words have almost a Churchillian ring:
Believe me, if all those endearing young charms,
Which I gaze on so fondly today
Were to change by tomorrow and fleet in my arms
Like fairy gifts fading away—
That air was played continually whilst the body of the great statesman was put on board the vessel that was to take him further on his journey to his final resting place. It dawned on me that our ties and cultures are almost the same. Emmett said that no one should write his epitaph until his nation took its place amongst the nations of the world. I think that the Irish nation has taken its place amongst the nations of the world, and I applaud all the efforts being made by the people of Northern Ireland and of Eire to make things better, and to make these people more prosperous.

5.8 p.m.

The Marquess of Hamilton: I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) in his remarks about agriculture, because this is still the biggest basic and most important industry in Northern Ireland. It directly employs 68,000 people, or 12 per cent. of the employed population, and has current exports running at £65 million a year. It is still the foundation of a rural economy, and agriculture on a sound economic basis is essential for the prosperity of Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland farmers are, however, subjected to a far greater degree

of price differentiation than that borne by other producers in the United Kingdom. Again, they are at a distinct disadvantage, since they have to market the majority of their production on this side of the Irish Channel. There is a far greater disparity in prices between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom than is covered by the present remoteness grant of £1¼ million per annum; in 1963 the total loss of farm income from selling at Northern Ireland prices amounted to over £5 million.
In the farming year 1963–64, the selling price of every commodity except for oats and barley was less in Northern Ireland than it was in Great Britain as a whole. For instance, paragraph 869, on page 207 of the Verdon Smith Report, states that the average return on a 10 cwt. bullock in Ulster is £9 5s. less than that on a similar animal in Great Britain. Of that sum, £2 might be ascribed to seasonal differences, but it still leaves £7 5s. to be accounted for by remoteness. The cost of importing essential feeding stuffs is also high. On average, barley costs between £3 and £3 10s. a ton more than it does in England and Wales. These disparities are rightly causing widespread concern amongst the farming community in Northern Ireland, for it is a fact that the farmer there is not receiving his share of increased prosperity to which he is entitled.
The figures I have just quoted provide not only a conclusive argument, but show an immediate necessity for a substantial increase in the remoteness grant, which, in present conditions, is totally inadequate. To encourage agriculture to expand and prosper in remote areas, the incentive of additional grants for agriculture are just as important as those available for other industries.
Again, there is a clear need for a more even spread of the economy throughout the United Kingdom. For too long we have had congestion, labour shortage and high activity confined to limited areas, while there has been a lack of of interest and of positive action in the outlying, more remote parts of the United Kingdom. If we are to overcome our economic difficulties, strengthen the balance of payments and create full employment throughout the United Kingdom, attention must be focused on these remote areas with their wasted resources, which


must be fully developed, since these areas contain considerable potential growth.
What is now needed is a clear indication from the Government of their intention to restrict industrial development certificates in the Midlands and in the South-East. Strict limitation of these certificates is essential to achieve industrial growth in the more remote parts of the United Kingdom. For, although Ulster is searching both North America and Western Germany in its intensive drive to attact new industries, our future successes, as in the past, will undoubtedly come from this country. Through our new industries the modernisation of our industrial structure is being carried out.
However, it has left Ulster highly vulnerable to the slightest change in the economy, as recent events have proved. Almost all our new factories are branch factories set up during the period of expansion. Immediately there is a downward trend in the economy resulting in contraction, we in Northern Ireland are the first to suffer. It is for this reason that our unemployment problem remains balanced on a knife's edge. We therefore view with considerable anxiety the growing signs of a possible slackening in expansion by the coming autumn or early 1966.
We in Northern Ireland are determined to create the right physical environment for industry in Ulster, for the problems of further industrial expansion are just as much physical as financial. Total exports in 1963 amounted to £385 million, an increase of £25 million on the previous year. This is a remarkable achievement for a country with a population of less than 1½ million. However, Northern Ireland's industry is deeply worried by the present cross-Channel freight rates. What is clearly needed is a fresh inquiry as recommended by the Wilson Report, in spite of the White Paper's rejection, because, as a recent leader in The Times stated,
regional economy can only flourish when light is turned on to every corner.
The effect of any increase of freight rates is two-fold, or could be described as double-edged. It applies just as much to the importing of raw materials as it

does to the exporting of a processed product. If we are to continue to attract new industries and to encourage our industrialists to expand further, freight rates must become more equitable.
I also hope that the Government will assist, wherever possible, in the development of air freight, for if it can become competitive with alternative freight services I am confident that in time the competitive disadvantages of our geographical position will cease to exist, since, apart from speed and saving of time, air freight saves capital sums being locked up in stock and it eases the distribution problem of Ulster products.
Although the welcomed cross-border talks may lead to freer trade between the countries, the House must remember that our main markets will continue to lie in this country. However, the current cross-border talks could benefit the development of tourism, which, in turn, could prove to be one of our biggest growth industries, which would be of particular benefit to my constituency.

Mr. Lubbock: Up till 18th January, when the first meeting between the two Prime Ministers took place, nobody in Ulster, except the Ulster Liberal Association, was advocating talks between the two Prime Ministers. Is this not a new conversion?

The Marquess of Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I attended several meetings between North and South on the subject of tourism. I can assure him that these consultations have been going on for a long time.

Mr. Lubbock: Not talks between the two Prime Ministers.

The Marquess of Hamilton: Before concluding, I must remind the Government of the deep concern, in spite of today's announcement, over the import surcharge on essential raw material for the man-made fibre industry. In my constituency there is Glass Fabrics, a subsidiary of Messrs. Turner and Newall Ltd. It is a rapidly expanding member of the man-made fibre group. Marbles of a special grade of glass imported from the United States are the company's basic raw materials. It is impossible to change to a United Kingdom source of supply. If the import surcharge continues for any


length of time, it might cause cessation of production. For this to happen to an expanding company operating in an area of high unemployment would be nothing less than tragic.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: For a debate on Northern Ireland this is a good turn-out. I have never before seen so many Ministers present. At one moment there were eight of them. It is very encouraging to see them.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman was not here last time.

Mr. Delargy: I certainly was. I am on record in HANSARD as having made a speech in that debate. In fact, the hon. and gallant Gentleman complimented me on my speech when he spoke towards the end of the last debate. His memory, like his politics, is very faulty.

Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman is as good this time, I might compliment him again.

Mr. Delargy: I was very glad to hear that Northern Ireland affairs are now in the hands of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was referred to, not inappropriately, as "Silken Thomas". I am all the more pleased about this because I recollect very vividly a Private Member's Motion which my hon. Friend moved on this subject 14 years ago. My hon. Friend might refresh his memory and read the extraordinarily good speech he made on that occasion. I hope that he has not departed from the principles and the policy that he expounded then.
I was very glad also to see the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench—for the first time, to my knowledge. It was most pleasant to see the hon. Gentleman there, and we hope to see him there for many years to come. The hon. Gentleman said that this was not a regional debate, but a debate about the needs of the whole nation. I agree entirely on that. Where we differ is as to what nation it is we are discussing. A foreigner, hearing an hon. Member from Northern Ireland say when discussing the needs of Northern Ireland that they were the needs of the whole nation, would certainly be pardoned for believing that it was about the

Irish nation that we are speaking. In fact, the hon. Member for Londonderry was not referring to the Irish nation at all, but to the English nation.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The Labour Party must get rid of the idea that all foreigners are so ill-informed as that.

Mr. Delargy: I do not think that foreigners are ill-informed. A foreigner would be very logical in drawing that conclusion. In fact, the Labour Party is more broadminded about foreigners than is the Conservative Party, which believes that all civilisation stops at Dover. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland as 6·6 per cent., and I believe that somebody else gave a figure of 6·9 per cent.

Sir F. Soskice: That was for 1964.

Mr. Delargy: Yes, 1964, and he took pleasure, as we all do, at the fact that these are the lowest figures since 1956. Nevertheless, the figures are still appalling. It is hard lines on those 6·6 per cent. or 6·9 per cent. who are unemployed. When one remembers the large amount of emigration from Northern Ireland into this country, one must conclude that but for that emigration the unemployment figures would have been much higher.

Mr. Henry Clark: Surely the hon. Gentleman is the classic pessimist who looks at a glass and says it is half-empty when most decent men would say that it half-full. If he looks at the figures more carefully he will find that, apart from some emigration from Northern Ireland, there was immigration from this country to Northern Ireland, and the employment figures for 1964 are higher than ever before in the history of Ireland, North or South.

Mr. Delargy: I was not looking at the figures. I was referring to figures which had been quoted from the two Front Benches and which so far have not been challenged. The previous Government were very often under fire for failing to provide employment in Northern Ireland. We hope and, indeed, expect that the present Government will improve on the sorry record of the last Government, but I must tell them that if they do not do so, they too will come under fire as the Tory Government did.
I do not want to be controversial this afternoon. I want to refer, as others have, to the great pleasure which has been given to so many people by the visits of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain Terence O'Neill, and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Mr. Sean Lemass. The news of these visits will be welcomed by everybody, or nearly everybody. In fact, one wonders why such visits did not take place long ago. Still, one must resist the temptation to look back. Looking backwards in anger or regret has been the cause of abundant mischief in Ireland. We should look not backwards but forwards. These visits have given great pleasure to people who have at heart the welfare of the Irish people, North and South. The hon. Member for Londonderry was a little guarded when he mentioned it and warned us that we must not see too much significance in it. I thought that he was being pessimistic.
There are so many endeavours in which the two Governments could collaborate. One has already been mentioned, tourism, which is of great importance to all Ireland. Then there are transport and the mutual balance of industry in which the two Governments could collaborate very closely to the great benefit of their peoples. Perhaps the tariff barriers could be lowered until ultimately they became invisible.
One hears of this collaboration and unity being extended into all sorts of fields. I received this morning a letter from a professor in Dublin asking me to support a united front in the City of Derry. Those words "united front" have an almost sinister ring for me, but I went on to read the letter and I discovered that the united front to which he referred was a united front of Catholics and Protestants. Said I to myself, "If the Catholics and Protestants of Derry unite on anything, it must be something good." I continued to read the letter and found something very good indeed. They were protesting that the new university of Northern Ireland is to be sited in Coleraine. I find this decision quite absurd. The university should be sited in Derry.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is this not one of the matters which are purely within the province of

the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland? Is it in order to refer to this matter in this debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it is not in order. I was listening and waiting for the hon. Gentleman to come to order.

Mr. Delargy: Am I not correct in believing that a certain amount of finance will be provided by this House for the university? That being the case, is not a Member of the House in order in referring to it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that any money will be going indirectly. The universities of Northern Ireland are in the hands of the Northern Ireland Government.

Mr. Delargy: I am sorry that I am out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am also sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not join this united front for such a worthy cause. As I say, I hope that the ecumenical spirit is spreading, even in Ireland, and one hopes that other people will follow the example of the Prime Ministers. It may be that the leaders of the different religious denominations will follow the lead of their Prime Ministers. The prospect dazzles. But if ecumenism spreads through Ireland, perhaps we may see a miracle—the Irish miracle. Most people in Ireland believe in miracles already, so the impossible is always possible there.
It has been said in authoritative quarters in London that the division of Ireland does not serve any British interests. Perhaps soon we shall hear somebody in Stormont say that the division of Ireland does not serve any Irish interest either. In the meantime, while Ireland is divided we must all welcome this new approach which has been symbolised more than anything else in the visits of the two Prime Ministers.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. James A. Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) seemed to suggest from the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland was stagnating. This is not the case. I have never ceased to be amazed at the tremendous change which has swept across the face of Northern Ireland and which has taken place in the people of Northern Ireland over the years.
Forty years ago when Northern Ireland was first created, a large section of the people were very poor. The three major industries were agriculture, shipbuilding and linen, and each of these was very sensitive to economic fluctuations, which meant that many people were constantly out of work. In the 1930s the proportion of unemployed was at times as great as one quarter. Hon. Members will know from that figure what human suffering there must have been during those years. We have a picture of the aged poor with only the workhouse to go to, the poor sick who had only an inadequate medical service, the father of a family receiving very little from the dole for his wife and children, and in addition there was little opportunity in the educational facilities for children to break out of their environment.
But that is a picture of long ago. In fact, since the war there have been great changes in Northern Ireland which would surprise anyone who had been absent from Ireland during the war. A quarter of the population is living in houses which have been built since the war, and millions of pounds have been spent on education, including the provision of technical schools. In addition, we have had a diversification of industry and the creation of about 50,000 new jobs. A network of roads has been planned and built, opening up the whole country. I could go on, but I realise that unemployment is the scourge of Northern Ireland and that the figure is still unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary mentioned that the average for 1964 was 6·6 per cent.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I have been listening to my hon. Friend with interest. Would he not agree that the real reason for the number of people unemployed is the high mechanisation of our farms in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, I was going to mention that. These figures have been created not only because of the contraction of the three major industries, and thousands of people leaving the farms, but also because we in Northern Ireland have the highest birthrate in the United Kingdom.
Professor Wilson estimates in his Report on Economic Development in Northern Ireland that over the next six

years there will be an increase of about 30 per cent. in the working population over the 1964 figures. These figures are tremendous. The challenge is there and we now have the Northern Ireland Economic Development Council to tackle it, but we are dependent on what happens in Westminster, because whatever the Government here do will have an effect on the plans in the Stormont. If the Government here introduce any more deflationary measures, they will put a brake on the development and prosperity of Northern Ireland.
Those who are employed at Short Bros. and Harland of Belfast are greatly concerned about their future. This was a great firm which attracted considerable contracting work for the HS.681 but that was cancelled and it was also announced that there would be no further orders for the Belfast freighter. Finally, consultants arrived to examine the redeployment of the firm's resources. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) will deal in detail with the firm if he is called to take part in the debate. It would be a tragedy if this great firm were phased out of the aircraft industry as contemplated by the present Government. It employs 7,500 of whom 5,500 are directly connected with the aircraft industry.
This is a matter of great concern to Northern Ireland because aircraft work has a high labour content. There is also no difficulty about freight charges because the products can be flown direct from the airfields. What is to happen to the well-balanced team there and to their skills? We in Northern Ireland need all the technical skills we can obtain and Short Bros, and Harland has provided a stimulus to Ulster's industrial life through its research work. The firm has not only a large and valuable training scheme but it has created a chair of aeronautical engineering at Queen's University, Belfast, and it absorbs a number of graduates from that university.
Against that background the firm was carefully designed and planned for long production runs of large aircraft. It has one of the largest bays in Europe, able to accommodate about six huge Belfast freighters. It would be ridiculous to turn this monster factory to the production of such things as machine-tools. The


firm is not content merely with working in Belfast but it also collaborates on the Continent in the design and production of the Fokker F28 with the Dutch Aircraft Company. A German aircraft company is also taking part in the project. Shorts has also an agreement with French and Belgian companies and will be responsible for 10 per cent. of the Bruget STOL aircraft.
Reference has been made in the debate to shipyards. I hope that when it comes to placing orders for the proposed aircraft carrier the Minister of Defence will remember the great experience and facilities available in Belfast shipyards. Since the Government came to power no Admiralty order has been placed with Harland and Wolff despite the fact that many orders have been placed in Scotland and in north-east England. Professor Wilson in his Report says that Ulster's great manpower is its most valuable asset if it is trained in industrial techniques. If we are to train these people, restrictive practices must go and Ulster must create a system of industrial training and apprenticeship which would be a magnet to industrialists looking for new sites. Here the Government can help us. I know that several hon. Members wish to take part in this important debate and I will leave them, including my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. East, to speak in particular about Short Bros. and Harland.
I am proud of the achievements which have been brought about by the Government of Northern Ireland in creating the prosperity that already exists there. I am too young to have known the depression years between the wars but it was possible as a child for me to sense them. Anyone who has touched on the fringes of the sorrow brought about by unemployment will fight hard to get rid of the high percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland today. We will undoubtedly help the Government here to help Stormont and the Northern Ireland Economic Development Council to get rid of this scourge which has haunted Northern Ireland for so long.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I am sure that all hon. Members are delighted to know that the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland

shows a downward trend but, as many hon. Members have said, there is no cause for complacency when one remembers that the unemployment percentage is still 6·9. In Liverpool the percentage is not as high as that, but I know only too well what that could mean in personal hardship and misery. I only hope that the alteration in the structure of the aircraft industry will not bring any more hardship to Northern Ireland. It has been mentioned that the shipyards there will probably tender for the new aircraft carrier. I know that there will be keen competition from Merseyside where people are hoping that the order may be placed there.
The contribution which I shall make to the debate is not necessarily related to the economy of Northern Ireland. In the debate which took place on 14th July last year, the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), who summed up for the Government, said:
Much of the debate has been taken up, not very helpfully, by allegations of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Frankly, I think that there are more urgent matters to discuss than these allegations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1964; Vol. 698; c. 1151.]
I have never been to Northern Ireland, though I hope to make a trip there later this year if I am still allowed in.
I can think of no more important matter to debate than discrimination, whatever form it takes. I represent a Merseyside constituency which has had its problems of discrimination in the past, which I am glad to say today are almost non-existent, to the greater happiness to the people of Merseyside, and I therefore know that I tread on dangerous ground, but that is no reason why I should not dare to tread upon it.
I come to this debate with no preconceived ideas on the problem, never having been there and not being a Catholic but a member of the Church of England, but I understand that the suggested discrimination is against Catholics. I hope that anything I say will be taken as coming from someone who really wants to know what the situation is.
Other hon. Members have probably received literature on this subject, as I have, but I have not confined my reading to literature sent to me through the post. I have read several books on the subject by people of different persuasions. My view is that there is discrimination, and


it seems to stem from both sides. That is the regrettable conclusion I have arrived at, but as I see it, the discrimination seems to hit harder against Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Captain Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is an allegation of discrimination on the part of the Northern Ireland Government, or what?

Mr. Crawshaw: I think that this point has been made in previous debates in the House. Last year, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) dealt with the matter at great length and made many suggestions as to where the discrimination lay. One matter he raised was the allocation of houses in a certain town. In that debate, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that, if any point were brought to his notice, he would be pleased to give an answer to it. That was one point specifically brought to his notice. I hope that, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is able to make a contribution today, he will give an answer to the suggestion of discrimination which the hon. Member for Orpington made in July last year.

Captain Orr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This raises again precisely the question which I raised earlier in the debate. The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to give an answer to a question concerning, as he alleges, religious discrimination by a local authority in the allocation of houses in Northern Ireland. I take it that I should be wholly out of order if I sought to do so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the House will bear with me a moment. This is a difficult point of order which has been raised several times in this debate and in the previous debate. I find that, on 14th July last, the Home Secretary, replying to the debate, said:
But the constitutional facts are that Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act provides that, in the exercise of its power to make laws the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall not make a law of a discriminatory kind on account of religion, and the executive power of the Northern Ireland Government is similarly limited under Section 8(6).
If that is so, this matter could be raised in the House.

Captain Orr: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Home Secretary, on that occasion, went on to say:

But it has been held by successive Governments in the United Kingdom, regardless of party, that the reserve powers in the Government of Ireland Act do not enable the United Kingdom Government to intervene in matters which, under Section 4, are the sole responsibility of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government.—[OFFiciAL REPORT, 14th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 1151.]
If, therefore, the United Kingdom Government does not have any authority or standing in the matter, it becomes very difficult to debate these questions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is why I said that this was a very difficult point. When reference was made to the reserve powers earlier in the debate, I took occasion to look through the reserve powers, and none of them deals with the problem now raised.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would you be good enough to give a specific answer to the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked, namely, would he be in order in responding to the suggestion just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw)?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor is in order in raising the point, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be in order in replying to it. That is the simple answer.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As I understood the hon. Gentleman's speech, he was not making any allegation against the Nor-them Ireland Parliament or Government. He was making an allegation in terms which I understood to be directed against a local authority in Northern Ireland. In these circumstances, I respectfully suggest that the matter would be out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In both sets of circumstances—Stormont or local government—unless the hon. Gentleman can link the matter with some Ministerial responsibility, it would be out of order. I was hoping that he might go on to do SO.

Mr. Rose: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate. It has to finish at seven o'clock. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that we shall not have too many points of order.

Mr. Rose: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I refer you to Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which provides:
Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland … or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Northern Ireland and every part thereof.
May I remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Questions have been put down to the Home Office concerning the extension to Northern Ireland of proposed legislation on discrimination? Legislation with regard to discrimination was a matter raised in the Queen's Speech, and Questions concerning Northern Ireland in this connection have been answered. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that this would be within the purview of the debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That commits us no further than what I said in my earlier reply to a point of order.

Mr. Crawshaw: I do not propose to go into more detail on these points. They have been raised in the House before, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite know of the matters which we have in mind. I ask them to take them quite seriously as questions being asked rather than as statements of existing facts. Do these things exist? That is what I want to know. The situation is disturbing to people who do not know the mechanics of central and local Government in Northern Ireland. To be quite frank, I did not know, for instance, that in local government elections there is a property vote, something which went out of this country many years ago. I can only say that, while there is a property vote, there must be a tendency towards discrimination, and I feel that it would be better for everyone if—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We are now going into the details of local government in Northern Ireland, which is a matter for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Crawshaw: I shall not pursue that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the

main points I wish to raise are connected with elections and local government in Northern Ireland. Without going into which parties are which, it strikes me as rather remarkable that, as a result of the reorganisation of boundaries, 31,000 electors can elect only eight representatives, while, in the same place, 18,000 electors, just over half that number, can elect 12 representatives.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, and I am not questioning the truth or otherwise of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must show what the House of Commons can do about it and what some responsible Minister can do about it.

Mr. Crawshaw: Discrimination was a matter raised in the Queen's Speech, and I am mentioning these figures in that connection. I am not going into the rights or wrongs of the issue, but it strikes anyone who comes to the problem afresh, as I have, that it is remarkable that these things can exist—if they do exist, and I have reason to believe that they do.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member is being very unfair. He has made several allegations about Northern Ireland which, as he knows, are out of order. He knows that it must be out of order for us to deal with them. That is most unfair.

Mr. Crawshaw: It puts me in an intolerable position if I am to be criticised if I give details and yet, on the other hand, when I want to deal with the subject on a broad front, I am criticised because I do not give the details. Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds whether they wish me to name these places. I have tried to do it as fairly as possible and I have not said whether they are nationalist, Tory, Catholic or anything else. I am not concerned with whether they are Catholics or Tories or anyone else. In my view, discrimination in itself is wrong. We are doing less than justice to the House if we are prepared to sit down without looking into such a problem.

Mr. Lubbock: On the last occasion that we debated Northern Ireland I gave some figures about the local election boundaries in Derry. I understand that this is out of order, but the figures have never been refuted.

Mr. Crawshaw: The point which I was making is that there was an undertaking that, facts and figures having been given, they would be answered. I was hoping that the hon. Member would answer them.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Member is posing many questions. Presumably he wants answers and presumably he is looking for information. But it has been ruled fairly clearly that he cannot be given that information and those answers. In those circumstances, would it not be helpful if he passed to a constructive discussion about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Crawshaw: I can well appreciate that certain hon. Members opposite do not like certain facts to be disclosed. But that is no reason why I should not seek the information.

Mr. Henry Clark: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) does not give way, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) must keep his seat. May I observe once again that this debate must close at 7 p.m. and that many hon. Members are seeking to speak in it.

Mr. Clark: The hon. Member should not make allegations.

Mr. Crawshaw: Perhaps I should conclude by asking the Under-Secretary of State in his reply to elucidate one or two points of this nature. They are confused issues. I understand that under the Act of 1920 we are empowered to look into matters in respect of the administration of Northern Ireland. Is there any substance whatever in the suggestions which I have made? I have no more reason to believe that they are true than to believe that they are not true, apart from the fact that I have read them. But I am sure that hon. Members opposite will dispute them if necessary. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State would answer this question: is it time to look into the administration of the Act of 1920 to see whether it is being operated fairly and whether it is necessary to make Amendments to it and to suggest alterations?

5.54 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I do not want to take too long, because there is still a chance that some of my hon. Friends may be called to speak in the debate. The House should contrast some of the speeches which we have heard from the other side of the House. The speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) was different in tone and in apparent objective from that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who sits in front of him, and that of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon).

Mr. Delargy: Is it not a splendid thing to have a variety of speeches instead of the same old dreary speeches which we hear from the other side of the House?

Captain Orr: I am all for diversification, and if I may say so, the hon. Member for Thurrock is more diverse than most people. We are always delighted to see him here. It has been beautiful to watch the way in which he has mellowed with age. His contribution today was helpful. I am sorry if he objects to my congratulating him, but I must congratulate him again upon the tone of his speech.
The hon. Member for Bootle, who I understand is returning to the Chamber shortly, also spoke in a fair and reasonable tone. Both of them welcomed the meetings between the two Prime Ministers—and rightly so. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) was right, however, when he said that we must be a little careful not to read too much into those meetings. Anything is good which gets people together, talking with good will. Nothing but good can flow from this. I am certain that there will be a great many matters across the frontiers which can be properly and reasonably discussed to the advantage of all.
But it would be dishonest if anyone were to suggest that, for example, the position of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom was likely to be in any way weakened. We are absolutely determined in Northern Ireland that whatever else may happen, this is one thing which will not happen. The constitution of Northern Ireland remains inviolate, and we are determined to see that it is so.
If hon. Members cast their minds back some 10 or 15 years—the hon. Member for Thurrock will bear me out—they will remember that this kind of debate upon Northern Ireland was then almost impossible. We were continually being ruled out of order by the Chair if we sought even to debate Northern Ireland affairs. It was not until one or two hon. Members were successful with Private Members' Motions that we were able to have a debate on Northern Ireland matters at all. It was normally held by the Chair in those days that anything to do with Northern Ireland, even its economic affairs, unless it related to Government contracts, was out of order in the House. I remember many times Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown ruling that these matters were out of order. It is a great advance that we have reached the position where not only can we debate these matters but it has become a recognised practice that the Government will once every Session find time to debate Northern Ireland affairs. This is a great advance.
My purpose in rising to points of order earlier was simply that while we welcome that the House can debate our economic affairs—because the work and energy of the Ulster Government and Parliament are strictly circumscribed by economic decisions here—we should not go to the other extreme and encroach on the just prerogatives of the Ulster Parliament. While the pendulum has been swinging the right way, there is a danger that it may swing too far, and we may begin to encroach in the House on the just prerogatives of a fairly and democratically elected Parliament, to which we have entrusted the task of looking after certain things which we have delegated to them. This House of Commons has given the Parliament of Northern Ireland a great many powers, and we ought to be careful that we do not now encroach on its prerogatives. This was the sole purpose of the points of order I raised.
If the hon. Member for Bootle, who sought to bring into this debate the question of religious discrimination—which you, Mr. Speaker, quite rightly ruled out of order—takes these allegations to any responsible authority in Northern Ireland, he will get a fair and just answer. If he is in difficulty, let him come to me and

I will help him. I give him an assurance that he will be able to get access to the person responsible. The responsibility lies in Northern Ireland. It does not lie with Ministers of any party in this House.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and happy to hear what he has said. At the earliest opportunity I hope to visit Northern Ireland to meet the gentleman concerned.

Captain Orr: I am glad to hear that. If the hon. Gentleman is in any difficulty in gaining access to the gentleman in question, I will facilitate it. I will now turn to the prime subject of the debate.
We have been dealing with Northern Ireland's economic problems. The Home Secretary made an interesting opening survey but, if I may say so, with respect, it was a little limited. He did not have very much to offer us except hope about the 1960 potato subsidy. That is welcome. We have been pressing for it for a long time. It has taken a long time for the Ministry of Agriculture to make up its mind and it is very satisfactory that, at last, it appears to be coming down on the right side.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): Another Government are in office now.

Captain Orr: That extraordinary interjection takes my breath away. But perhaps we had better get on. I do not want to take up too much time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry and others who have spoken from this side of the House have covered almost all the ground and I do not want to go over it again. However, I want to underline two points. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry said, we have now got the Wilson Report. If most of the parts that the Ulster Government have accepted are carried into effect, it will transform Northern Ireland in the next few years. We shall be very well satisfied with this debate if the United Kingdom Government can assure us that nothing in the carrying out of the Wilson Report, as set out in the Northern Ireland Government's White Paper, will be inhibited for want of Treasury support.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (The Marquess of Hamilton) dwelt, quite rightly, on the subject of agriculture, which is Northern Ireland's mast important industry. But it is important not only to Ulster but to the United Kingdom as well. I wonder whether hon. Members understand just how important it is. For example, 36 per cent. of the nation's pigs come from Northern Ireland; 11 per cent. of the nation's fat cattle; 10 per cent. of potatoes; 8 per cent. of the eggs and 5 per cent. milk.
Northern Ireland farming is incredibly efficient—I think that we have the most efficient farming industry in the United Kingdom. Our output per acre is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom. But the extraordinary thing is that, in the midst of this comparatively rosy picture, there are some 13,000 full-time small farmers whose income is less than £10 a week, and this represents a very serious social problem. About half of the 13,000 are on farms of less than 20 acres and consequently here we have one of the most dangerous potential social problems facing us in Ulster.
It is all very well to say that economic forces will gradually bring about amalgamations of farms—will force them to come together—but we cannot in this case leave it to blind economic forces because, under our system of land tenure, our small farmers are owner-occupiers; they farm land that was farmed by their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers and there is every incentive, deep within them, to stay on the land. Consequently, to allow the blind forces of economics to drive these people off the land is almost wicked to contemplate.
Something has to be done to ease the transition to greater co-operation between our farmers. I know that the Government at present have something in mind about co-operation and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will tell us a little more about their plans in this respect. The problem is not confined to Northern Ireland although it is peculiarly important there. It applies to every other part of the United Kingdom. However, Northern Ireland is undoubtedly peculiarly vulnerable in this respect. I hope that at least the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he has the problem very much in mind and is determined that it shall be solved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone suggested that something might be done through the "remoteness grant". This is a special grant in Northern Ireland to offset the high cost of freight across the Irish Sea. He put forward a very cogent argument for increasing the remoteness grant and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will go to the Treasury and tell it in no uncertain terms that this matter is becoming urgent.
Professor Wilson suggests the setting up of an agricultural trust in order to finance certain industries ancillary to agriculture. We want to see many more of these sited in country areas to use the produce from the farms and this might very well be financed through the remoteness grant. Again I ask that no Treasury barrier should be put up when something as imaginative as that is being mooted in order to help our small farmers.
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland have approached this debate in a nonparty political way. We have been satisfied that it should be a debate on the Adjournment. We have been quite prepared to put our points of view to the Government as capably and clearly as possible. We recognise that the Government still have a great deal to do and we recognise that they have made a great many promises to Northern Ireland. We are in a state of very considerable anxiety about the future of our aircraft and shipbuilding industries and farming community. We are still prepared to suspend judgment but not for too long. I remind the Government that later this Session we shall have another half-day's debate on Northern Ireland and that then our approach might be very different from today's unless they behave themselves in the meantime and carry out the promises they have made.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: In a debate on Northern Ireland, it is incumbent upon me, perhaps, to explain why I should intervene. I will say to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that of course the debate can proceed in a nonpartisan way, because hon. Members opposite have a monopoly of the Northern Ireland seats while the Opposition in Northern Ireland is not represented here. That is one good reason for my entering


the debate, but there is another and more local reason.
On 23rd November, 1867, three Irish Fenians, named Allen, Larkin and O'Brien were publicly hanged in Salford Gaol, Manchester, and buried in Mostyn Cemetery. In 1898, a memorial was erected to their honour. One of the people who spoke on their behalf at the time was a Member of the House, John Bright, a Manchester man whose statue now stands in our city. It is with this precedent in mind that I rise to speak on this issue, an issue geographically far from my constituency, but close to the hearts of many of my constituents.

Mr. Henry Clark: May we take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he is representing the official Opposition in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rose: I do not think that any such thing can be taken from my remarks. I am merely trying to point out that there are many people on this side of the Irish Sea who are interested in the problems of Ireland.
Many immigrants from Ireland settled in Manchester and many of them chose an area in my constituency, Mostyn. Although their Irish origins are very much lost in the past, the electoral register will make it plain that this is still a live issue in the constituency, an issue which can take up a whole evening in an election campaign, as it did in mine. This is only one of my reasons for intervening in a debate about a part of the United Kingdom over which a cloak of silence has so often been drawn by all political parties.
As a Socialist, I am utterly opposed to any kind of discrimination against any group of human beings on grounds of race, religion or nationality.

Captain Orr: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be harking back to the same subject. May I extend to him my offer which I made to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon)? This may save the hon. Gentleman a considerable amount of time.

Mr. Rose: It will probably take the hon. and gallant Gentleman a good deal

of time, because I have a file of such complaints.

Captain Orr: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pass it to me. I will see that it goes to the right quarter.

Mr. Rose: I will be delighted to hand it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, although I notice that he did not make a similar offer to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) whose raised a similar issue in a previous debate.

Captain Orr: rose—

Mr. Rose: I do not propose to give way any more.
The evidence which I receive week by week points to a manifestation of discrimination in both jobs and housing. During the recent General Election, in Belfast, West a leaflet was put out by an extremist organisation. It contained the following words:
Do you want Roman Catholics in your street?
We should not mince words about this matter. This is something which should be known the length and breadth of the land. These words are the shades of similar slogans which appeared on the walls of Smethwick. I do not for a moment blame the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder), and I would not for a moment suggest that he was in any way responsible. I have a great admiration for the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he is far too civilised to associate himself with that grotesque and medieval sentiment.
However, there appears to be a great deal of evidence about the practice of discrimination in the Six Counties, and on this side of the Irish Sea a conspiracy of silence seems to hide this evidence from the public. The evidence is impressive and substantial and certainly constitutes at least a prima facie case which must be answered. I intended to quote several examples, but that appears to be out of order because we are not allowed to discuss matters coming within the ambit of Stormont. This is the rub, because when the matter was raised at Stormont by a Nationalist member only recently—

Captain Orr: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but surely this attempt by hon.


Members opposite is now becoming an abuse. They are not dealing constructively with the matter before us, but are trying time after time to introduce matters which are clearly out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who is usually very courteous, would have been more courteous if he had allowed the hon. Gentleman to finish his sentence before he questioned whether it was in order.

Mr. Rose: The difficulty is that when this matter is raised at Stormont, as it was on 16th February by a Nationalist member, Mr. Austen Currie, it is said that it is not a matter for Stormont. One wonders how to get to the root of this evil and to elicit the information required if it is not a matter for this House, nor for the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
There are grave allegations, allegations with which I had intended to deal, but with which I shall not deal now, partly because of the time and partly because of the point of order. In addition to the allegations about housing and jobs, there is also an allegation about the siting of the new university and the siting of the new town in the County of Armagh and the cutting of railway links, all for political motives and all with political undertones.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, has already ruled that to refer to the new university at Derry and to other matters which are solely within the responsibility of the Parliament of Northern Ireland is out of order.

Mr. Lubbock: Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, ruled about the siting of the new university, but did not say anything about the new town in Armagh.

Mr. Rose: If I did not mention the new town in Armagh, I will do so now.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. I was asking for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have not yet got the point of what this is about. What is quite clear is that we cannot in this House in this debate refer to matters which are not the responsibility of the Minister here. In effect we are debarred by Statute from

doing so and it is necessary to insist upon the rule.

Mr. Delargy: Apart from Short Bros. and Harland and Wolff, what can we mention in this House in a debate about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Speaker: That which is the subject matter of Ministerial responsibility here.

Mr. Rose: With all these points of order, one wonders what hon. Members opposite have to hide. If there is no truth in these allegations and no foundation for them, there should be no objection to the proposals which I am about to make and which do come within the ambit of the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend.
I have had a Question about the extension of discrimination in Northern Ireland. I have deliberately refrained from going into details, but this is a matter which needs to be discussed and I hope that, before they interject with superfluous points of order, hon. Members opposite will understand exactly under what heading this subject is being raised. I have three sugggestions to make about discrimination.
First, if we are, quite properly, to ban discrimination against people with different coloured skins who come to our shores—and I hope that this legislation will not be long delayed—why should we not also include religious discrimination and extend such legislation to a part of the United Kingdom where there are allegations of discrimination against some of our own citizens? If there is nothing to fear, if this discrimination does not exist, I am sure that hon. Members opposite will join me in supporting that legislation.
There is also a need, when we have our projected ombudsman, to extend his powers over events in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty. He will be aware of the rule which excludes the discussion of legislation on a Question for the Adjournment of the House. I have not quite followed what the hon. Gentleman is doing, but it sounds like a suggestion for legislation, in which case it would seem that he has gone far enough.

Mr. Rose: May I turn from the question of legislation? There might be an alternative method of dealing with this problem. Perhaps a Royal Commission might be set up to deal with the broader issues involved—not only the question of discrimination, but all of the economic problems which face Northern Ireland and the problem of links with the South. I join hon. Members who have spoken in welcoming the better relations which are developing between the Republic in the South and Northern Ireland.
Let it not be said that this House does not have power over these matters. Several hon. Members have suggested in points of order that this House does not have power. I ask them to look at Section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and then to refer to Section 75, which I read out previously in pursuing a point of order. I ask them, on the basis of that, to understand that this House has ultimate authority over Northern Ireland. If it did not have that ultimate authority, presumably the 12 hon. Members opposite who represent Northern Ireland would not be sitting here. When that happens, it may have interesting political consequences for this country.
There can be no first-class or second-class citizens in the United Kingdom, and I appeal to hon. Members on both sides to realise that this principle is indivisible. The races, religions and nationalities which go to make up our population have something to add to the value of our common culture. It is because I want to unite rather than to divide that this matter must be discussed. It is a very unpleasant issue and one does not like to raise it. However, we do not solve problems by being ostriches and refusing to look problems in the face.
I give this warning to hon. Members who would stifle this discussion. There are many hon. Members, not only on this side, but I believe on the second bench below the Gangway opposite, who will be taking up this issue and who are most concerned with it. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Orpington and the contribution which he made in a previous debate on the Adjournment.
To abolish the memory of the past dissensions and to substitute the common

name of "Irishmen" in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and dissenter was the object of a great Irish democrat, Theobald Wolfe Tone. It is because Northern Ireland is a microcosm of this problem, be it in Cyprus, Mississippi, the Middle East or Smethwick, that I believe that it is important to us all. I hope that in uncovering this issue we will help to eradicate just one injustice.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I wish to summarise some of the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House, partly because I have been allotted the task of shadowing the Home Secretary and partly because—and I hope that it is not wildly out of order to refer to the fact—I am quarter Ulsterman and, therefore, have some right to speak in this debate.
The problems which confront Northern Ireland are illustrative of a great many other problems which confront the rest of the United Kingdom. They are central to one of the big problems in Northern Ireland. The balancing act between the Department of Economic Affairs and the Treasury is something which we are watching all the time with entranced fascination, and somewhere out of that a decision is taken about how far we can expand the economy and how far sterling and the balance of payments must override that. But, meanwhile, there are other parts of the country which have special problems of their own and which are affected by national decisions. Some of them are less developed.
I represent, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department represents, such an area—or it used to be such an area. In South Wales we have broken through the problem to a large degree. We now plead with no one. We stand broadly on our own feet. Industries are proud to go to that area. Almost all of us who study these problems, wherever they arise, would like to reproduce in other parts of the United Kingdom something of the success achieved in South Wales. But there are areas, like Lanarkshire and the North-East Coast, where this degree of success has not been achieved. Particularly is the problem unsolved in Northern Ireland. Sometimes the unemployment rate in Scotland is quoted as being double


that of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland rate has often been above the Scottish rate.
I am particularly glad that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs, is to reply to the debate. I do not know whether he originated the term "two nations", but I think that he was active towards the end of the last Parliament in drawing attention to the fact that there was great expansion in the rich acres of southeast England and nothing like as much in other parts of the United Kingdom. He will shortly have the opportunity at the Dispatch Box of announcing the implementation of some of the proposals which he then put forward and of producing solutions to some of the problems which he then posed. I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in that.
We should not underestimate what has been achieved—the factories which have been built, the new jobs which have been found, the grants which have been provided, the skills which have been applied, the dry dock at Belfast, the refurbishing of the shipyards at Harland and Wolff, the incentives which have been offered, and so on. Credit must be given, and I think in order can he given, to the Government of Northern Ireland, to the United Kingdom Ministers who have made their contribution and to all the men on the shop floor or on the boards of directors in a vast range of industries, from agriculture to aircraft, who have contributed to solving the problem.
However, the problem remains a very considerable one. Despite all the effort, the increase in the number of jobs provided barely keeps pace with the decline in other forms of activity. The increase in agricultural production, which is greatly to the credit of the men who work in that industry in Northern Ireland, is not necessarily matched by an increase in manpower in that industry; indeed, rather the contrary is the case. It is often and inevitably matched by a reduction in manpower. This merely accentuates the need, which hon. Members on both sides recognise, for alternative forms of employment.
Agriculture is, and will remain, the basic industry of Northern Ireland. It is certainly an important part of the Home Secretary's responsibility—no one else

can do it—to ensure that the agricultural policies of the United Kingdom are attuned to the needs of Northern Ireland. As we approach the period of the year when discussions take place on prices, subsidies and support costs, we very much hope that the Home Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary will make their voices heard and will ensure that the special needs of Northern Ireland are accentuated in the discussions between Ministers which properly take place at that time.
Obviously, we must look beyond agriculture. We must look to the technological base of Northern Ireland. We all view with the gravest anxiety the situation which has flowed from the decisions on the aircraft industry. Whatever the nature of those decisions, I think that all of us would wish to pay tribute to the design teams which contrived the Belfast, the Seacat and the Skyvan, to the men working on the VCIO and to the men who would have worked on the HS681.
I shall not debate the aircraft industry here—that would be inappropriate—but I say firmly that when the operational requirement was de-graded, whether that be right or wrong, I deplored the ugly rush to buy an American aircraft, and an outdated one at that. I feel that if the Home Secretary had made his voice more firmly heard at that moment, at least there would have been a better hearing for the men at Short's and a chance to say that a British aircraft, either at Short's or even at Hawker's and partly fabricated at Short's, could have been put forward as a solution. I wonder whether it is, even now, too late for pressure of that kind and representations of that character to be made.
As to the alternative employment that has been mentioned, these new words about the future of Short's lying outside the aircraft industry ring somewhat strangely in our ears when one remembers what the hon. Gentleman's boss, the First Secretary, said on television in Northern Ireland. Asked what they could do, "You can build aeroplanes", he said. He kept on repeating it. Of course, they can build aeroplanes in Northern Ireland. The question is whether they are to be permitted to build them. If not, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will tell


us in rather more detail what is in his mind on this matter.
The Government are a Government of planners. I do not say that in any derogatory sense, but I am sure that, after all that was said about planning, the aircraft orders were not simply scrapped like that. Decisions were not taken to say that Short's would no longer have a real future in the aircraft industry without the most careful and cogent thought having been given to what the alternative really was. I am confident that in those discussions the Home Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs were brought in. We do not need final answers now, but we need a corner of the veil to be lifted in fairness to the men of Northern Ireland. We would like information about the type of work which they really have in mind.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said in opening the debate from this side, diversification is not a blindingly novel solution for the problems of Short's. Everything from analogue computers to carpet sweepers has been tried. I do not say that there are not other possibilities, but, at least, a hint or indication of what they are should be given by the Government spokesman in winding up the debate.
I see in the Press that some other plans may be redrawn. I read with anxiety a statement emanating from the Ministry of Defence, my former Ministry, about Londonderry. I hope that the Home Secretary will be careful about this. There is a tendency for all the Services—and I speak with knowledge of this—to site their headquarters within two hours' journey of Marble Arch. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be taken in by all the talk about technical reasons and the rest which have been handed out by the Ministry of Defence.
When I was at the Ministry of Defence, I was bringing powerful arguments to bear to arrange that many of the headquarters should be removed altogether from southeast England, where they are crowded together in a narrow corner of the country, and that opportunity should be taken of siting them in Scotland, in the north of England and in Northern Ireland. [An

HON. MEMBER: "Why did not the right hon. Gentleman do it?"] Far from removing an anti-submarine base—[Interruption.]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I was merely saying—

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I was concerned with this in the Ministry of Defence. The fact is that a great many headquarters could be moved.
There is probably a good military case for reciting quite a number of headquarters which are at present sited in south-east England. This should particularly appeal to anyone who is associated with the articles about "two nations". This is exactly the type of solution for which he should be searching. If the Home Secretary needs any assistance in this matter, I will be very happy to help him to brush aside some of the pseudo-technical military arguments for building everything within theatreland, or somewhere like that. We must see whether we cannot co-operate together to ensure that some work at least is resited in that way.
The accusation could be made of the Government that there appears so far to have been a certain absence of planning by them in the location and future of industries in Northern Ireland. We are fortunate in having the Joint Under-Secretary to reply to the debate. There is a great range of activities, from industry to military affairs, to Government Departments and to research stations. Some such solutions have been applied in parts of Scotland. There is a whole range of Government activity in this case available to the Government, who have prided themselves on their willingness to bring dynamic planning to the service of the State.
This is an opportunity. For our part, if the Joint Under-Secretary is in a position to indicate, again in broad terms, that it is his policy to move part, perhaps, of the Home Office, perhaps of his own Department or of the Departments of any of his colleagues, and that they should be established in Northern Ireland and centred there, as others have been in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom, we would certainly be—

Mr. John Robertson: On a point of order. I have been listening very carefully to the debate. Several of my hon. Friends have been ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker, for trying to introduce questions which, strictly, come under the aegis of the Government at Stormont. Location of industry is not a responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I suggest that the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have looked at Section 4 of the Statute, but I do not think that that is right.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly, a suggestion that the Joint Under-Secretary should offer up a Government Department or a section of it or a research station to Northern Ireland must be something at least within the ambit of Her Majesty's Government and properly within their control. Equally, there are opportunities on the military side.
There are certainly vacancies that can be opened up by the Government on the industrial side. If Short's are to be moved, to some extent at least, outside the manufacture of aircraft, one or two ideas must have occurred to the Department of Economic Affairs about something which could be put in its place. If we can have just a few of those ideas in the final speech of this debate, all sides of the House will be under a sense of obligation to the Joint Under-Secretary.
The central features of the plan must be on the basis of the Wilson Report. That has nothing to do with the Prime Minister. We all wish that he was an Ulsterman, when we would feel much better. This is a much better and finer creature. The Report has been presented to the Government of Northern Ireland and is necessarily their responsibility, but to see it carried through successfully can only be done by the full backing of Her Majesty's Government. Its theme is flexibility of labour and the development of growth points within the economy. One growth point has been sadly nipped in the past few weeks and we want to know what other growth points the Joint Under-Secretary has in mind and what steps he will take to develop them.
Northern Ireland presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The very existence of this labour supply is not essentially a liability, it is an asset; an opportunity for use; an opportunity to provide something which is scarce—a supply of labour, may I say a supply of labour which is increasingly skilful. The Home Secretary has here a great opportunity to show initiative. I hope and trust that between him and the Ministry of his hon. Friend the necessary resources of skill and technical and economic advice will be available.
We must all expect, particularly in view of what the Government have said in the past and the many articles—we admire him for those articles—which the right hon. Gentleman wrote on this very subject during the years preceding the General Election, to have something really robust, forthcoming and hopeful to the people of Northern Ireland.

6.41 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): This has been a most helpful and constructive debate, made all the more enjoyable by the very vigorous closing speech from the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). It is flattering to be invited to make, in the course of 18 minutes, the sort of speech indicated by the right hon. Gentleman—which would take a full half hour. It is flattering also to know that the right hon. Gentleman has been reading so hard in recent times much of the literature from what is now the Government.
I was struck by the right hon. Gentleman's very firm statement that he believes in planning and his enthusiasm for moving the Services out of London and the South-East. It is in great contrast to his own policies, and that of the former Government, during the period they were in office. It certainly made the debate more entertaining to have his dynamic advocacy in place of the longstanding inaction which has characterised the right hon. Gentleman over a period of years, but I do not think that he added greatly to our knowledge, or revealed any new aspects of the problem with which we are trying to deal.
We may accept that there is equal concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House with the problems of Northern Ireland. We may assume that


we are agreed on the ends, and what we are concerned with now are the means by which they may be achieved. I think that I can state our object very simply. We want to see that Northern Ireland shares fully in the prosperity and economic growth of the United Kingdom, both contributing to it and also benefiting from it.
I think that this view is held by the Northern Ireland Government, and expressed in the White Paper which is associated with the Wilson Report. In paragraph 8 of the White Paper the Northern Ireland Government very clearly enunciates the rôle that Northern Ireland will play in the future in the economic development of the United Kingdom as a whole, and we would not wish to dissent from the view which is there expressed.
The plain fact is—and the right hon. Member for Monmouth chose to overlook this completely—that in the period with which we are dealing unemployment in Northern Ireland has proved hitherto an intractable problem. I entirely agree with what has been said by hon. Members on this side of the House that the present level of unemployment must be regarded as unacceptably high. Our job is not simply, in terms of the problem with which we know we are dealing, to prevent it from rising further, but, over a period, to see that it falls to a level which is more acceptable. It certainly is not acceptable so long as the figure is greatly above the United Kingdom average. I would also say that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that in the relatively short time this Government has been in office we must have been able to get more industry to Northern Ireland, is a very surprising and startling one.
I wish to say a word or two about the remarks made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). He said—this bears on what I have just mentioned about unemployment—that we cannot afford to waste unexploited resources of manpower. This is the other side of the unemployment problem. On the one hand, we do not like to see the hardship associated with unemployment wherever it is. On the other, we acknowledge the fact that if we are to achieve economic growth, the under-employed resources of those parts of the kingdom with high

unemployment must be brought in to play a full part in the development of our economy.
The hon. Member said that we should look closely at development district policy and that perhaps we were not spending enough, and that present policies were not sufficiently sophisticated. I agree that we should bear these two very important factors in mind when we look at our regional policies in the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Gentleman may well be right about both of them.
The noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (The Marquess of Hamilton) referred to the I.D.C. policy. The Government are anxious to resist the development in London and the South-East of England of Industries which are foot-loose and might be sent to other parts of the United Kingdom—to Northern Ireland to Scotland, to the North-East, or possibly to parts of Cornwall—all areas of the United Kingdom at present suffering from high unemployment.
I should add that the Government's Control of Offices and Industrial Development Bill is a step in the direction of broadening location of industry policy and bringing in types of employment previously excluded, and one which, in the long-run, will have consequences of considerable importance for the country as a whole. We accept the fact that the future and the fortunes of Northern Ireland are bound up with those of the rest of the United Kingdom—there is no question about that. This view was expressed by the Northern Ireland Prime Minister in the debate at Stormont last week.
There have been references to the Wilson Report and I should like to turn to that for a moment. This most important Report is on similar lines to the Reports on the North-East and Central Scotland which, whatever their shortcomings—and they were many—represented a step in the direction of the development of proper regional policies.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Before the hon. Gentleman goes into the Wilson Report in detail, will he confirm one thing? He will recall that in the debate in March, 1962, the House and the then Government accepted a Motion calling for


special measures for Northern Ireland beyond those for the development districts in Britain. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is still the policy of the Government?

Mr. Rodgers: Our concern now is to see that the proposals in the White Paper of the Northern Ireland Government, based on the Wilson Report, are implemented. The Wilson Report goes a good deal further than any Report of that time in suggesting the sort of policy which might be pursued in Northern Ireland which would meet the problem referred to by the hon. Member. I am sure that taking the Wilson Report as our text is the best means of trying to deal with the problem now.
In the Wilson Report there is reference to a target of 30,000 new jobs in manufacturing industry. We hope very much that it will be possible to achieve that by 1970. We know also there will be additional jobs, roughly 35,000, which are anticipated in the Wilson Report, partly as a result of an increase in manufacturing capacity of the size I mentioned. I understand—I regret I was not in the Chamber at the time—that the hon. and gallant Gentleman—Captain O'Neill—asked what the United Kingdom Government's attitude was to the Wilson Report and particularly to the financial implications.
Our Ministers have been in close touch with all these developments in Northern Ireland, as I explained, and we take the view that the financial implications of the Wilson Report are manageable. In relation to population, the public service investment involved in the Wilson Report is on about the same scale as what was accepted by the previous Government for public service investment in Scotland and the North-East, which again will help to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite in this respect.
I would have liked, if I had had time, to go into the broad discussion of regional policies to which the right hon. Member for Monmouth invited me. This, however, is not the appropriate moment. I would only say that in setting up new machinery for regional planning in England, Scotland and Wales, we are in the closest possible touch with the Government of Northern Ireland, so that the plans will knit together and will all contribute to our national economic plan.

We shall keep the Northern Ireland Government regularly informed on matters which are considered in Whitehall and which bear on our new regional machinery.
As the House will know, we anticipate regular meetings of the chairmen of the new regional economic planning boards. An official of the Northern Ireland Government will keep in touch by attending these, and we anticipate that an official of the Department of Economic Affairs will also make many visits to Stormont to maintain liaison. There is certainly nothing between us on the need for this.
I should like to turn for a moment to the problem of Short's, because it clearly has featured considerably in the debate and is in our minds at present. I would share in the tribute paid by the right hon. Member for Monmouth to the design teams at Shorts', but I want to make it quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on the other side have no monopoly of concern in the problem which has now arisen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary repeated, in opening the debate, the assurance given by the First Secretary of State and by the Minister of Aviation in the debates on the aircraft industry. The important thing now is to decide what we can do to maintain the level of employment at Short's and to give it as secure and economic a future as possible. Short's is a very important factor for the economy of Belfast and Belfast is a very considerable factor in the total economy of Northern Ireland.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the Chief Industrial Adviser to the Department of Economic Affairs visited Belfast last Friday and has now returned from that visit. I should say that he is himself an Ulsterman and was a member of the Northern Ireland Development Council, so he is fully aware not only of the problems of Short's, but of the problems of Northern Ireland as a whole.
The hon. Member for Londonderry said that he reserved his judgment on diversification. I think, however, that we ought now to accept the fact that a firm of this size employing 7,500 men, should ensure that it has a sure economic base. That means a base which does not simply depend on any one industry which, due to a variety of reasons, can find its employment potential changing.

Mr. McMaster: I should like to increase morale at home, which is low in Short's, by asking the hon. Gentleman if he could mention one specific aircraft project which will fill the gap over the next two or three years, a gap which will be very serious.

Mr. Rodgers: This is a serious gap, as the hon. Member says, and it is very much in our minds. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation is also going to Belfast tomorrow. I think that the House, which has followed very closely the work which he has been doing to encourage the export trade of the aircraft industry, will appreciate that this is an important step, and is a measure of the personal attention which he is giving to this problem of the period of two years in which we must find employment and, if possible, markets for the present products of Short's.
I do not think that I can say—it would be quite wrong to attempt to do so—exactly what form diversification would take. In suggesting that, the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to make a decision hastily which could, for that reason, possibly be the wrong one. We have said that we intend to appoint consultants. Discussions have taken place between the Chief Industrial Adviser and Short's on this matter and we believe that when these are concluded the consultants will go very carefully into the problem of diversification to find a solution which is satisfactory. I think that it should be said that it is probably on the marketing side that the most difficult job exists.
We believe that it will be possible to redeploy the manpower and make use of the skills, and I entirely share the feeling that Short's have over a period contributed greatly to technical education in Northern Ireland. We want to retain these reserves of skill. We believe that this can be done and that, if proper attention is given to diversification, Short's could be put permanently on a surer basis than they at present enjoy. It is true that some years ago they successfully diversified into missiles. The Sea Cat has had a considerable success. I think it is the case that a further diversification such as an advance into the field of numerically controlled machine tools would not be difficult in the light of their experience in diversifying into missiles.
We want, then, to make sure that whatever plans are prepared they redeploy the existing labour force and make proper use of available skills, and are technically feasible, and import saving, and that there is an existing market for the new products which Short's will produce. The Chief Industrial Adviser to the Department of Economic Affairs had very useful discussions both with management and with the trade unions. We believe that the outcome will be a satisfactory one and will relieve the very grave and proper doubts and anxieties of the work force of Short's There is no occasion for their morale to be depressed by the consequences of technological and other changes with which we are dealing.
In conclusion, I must say that, of course, good will alone is not enough to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland, but good will is at least a starting point. I want to make it quite clear that, on the part of the Government, there is immense good will towards Northern Ireland and a real anxiety to help them solve this very difficult—

Mr. Delargy: Does my hon. Friend intend to say nothing about points which have been put from this side of the House?

Mr. Rodgers: I wish that I had more time to deal wholly with all the points raised from both sides of the House. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear at the beginning of this debate, the reason why I am intervening is to deal with economic aspects of the problems of Northern Ireland. I entirely appreciate that feelings of hon. Members on both sides, but I have had to follow a practical course in the time available.
During the coming years, we shall see further changes in the economy of Northern Ireland. Nobody in this House, I am sure, would wish to resist technological change. This is essential to economic advance. As I have said, the economic advance of the United Kingdom as a whole will be an advance in which Northern Ireland shares, but we must deal with the very real human problems and make sure that when change comes individuals do not suffer as a consequence. Good will and practical


help, which Northern Ireland has from the present Government could do a very great deal.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Could the Under-secretary of state say something about agriculture, before he sits down?

Captain Orr: With your leave, Mr. speaker, perhaps I could say, in the time available, that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member needs the leave of the House to speak again

Captain Orr: —the Minister said not a solitary word about agriculture.

Mr. Delargy: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, south (captain Orr) has already spoken in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: That is why I told him that he requires the leave of the House.

Captain Orr: I thought that I had asked for, and obtained, the leave of the House.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: In view of the fact that the opposition of my hon. Friends and myself to the Bill is concentrated entirely on those Clauses which are the subject of a Motion seeking to give an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, if it would suit the convenience of the House I propose not to move the first Motion on the Order Paper—That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months—but to move the second Motion.

Mr. Speaker: We must await the view of the House. I will put the Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clauses 14, 15 and 16 and the Schedule to the Bill.
The instructions which my hon. Friends and myself seek to give to the Committee on the Bill are prompted by considerations which I hope will be readily appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are some issues of policy on which the differences between hon. Members on opposite sides of the House are strong and well defined. There are other, less-emphasised fields of policy where the parties share a unanimity of view. Occasionally such a unanimity finds simultaneous expression by all parties in recognition of clear and compelling circumstances in our national life demanding positive action.
This occurred at the recent General Election when it was felt throughout the political life of the country that in an age of marked material progress it was desirable that encouragement should be given to people to lead fuller and more satisfying lives in order that they might enrich their leisure hours. Undoubtedly one of the strongest elements in this field was a clear recognition that the amenities


of coast and countryside should be preserved and that the facilities for recreation should be extended.
May I for a moment remind the House that the Conservative election manifesto proposed the establishment of a Countryside Commission. It was stated in the Conservative Party manifesto:
We propose to set up a Countryside Commission with sufficient resources to secure the positive care of countryside and coast including the National Parks".
It went on,
Whilst strictly safeguarding secluded areas, the Commission will advise planning authorities on the designation of 'recreation areas' where boating, Climbing, gliding and similar activities will be welcome.
On this issue there was very little between the parties, I feel, having read the statement in the Labour Party manifesto, under the heading "Leisure Activities", or in the publication which I have here, "Importance of Leisure". Perhaps I may read it, without any intention of scoring a debating point but in order to emphasise the deepness of the feeling which is current on this issue:
Automation, new sources of energy and the growing use of the electronic calculating machine are beginning to transform almost all branches of our economic and social life. As these trends develop, the importance of leisure will steadily increase.
It went on a little later:
A Labour Government would therefore … end the present parsimony in the supply of public funds for outdoor recreation; develop the national parks; preserve access to the coast and protect it from pollution and unplanned development.…
I quote from those two manifestoes on this occasion not to accentuate differences but to emphasise that on this subject there was a deep unanimity of view. In moving the Instruction in the Motion, my hon. Friends and I are prompted by exactly these considerations. There is, I am sure, a widespread desire in the country for the extension of facilities for outdoor recreation and for the preservation of amenities. With that in mind, I submit that the relief sought in the Bill from the obligation to maintain a considerable section of the Lancaster Canal in a state fit for navigation is directly opposed to the interests of the community and that the Lancaster Canal is the type of rural amenity which this House should be seeking to extend and not to curtail.
The county from which I come, the County of Lancaster, has a population of more than 5 million people, many of them living in towns which still bear scars left by the rapid industrial expansion of the last century, an expansion which took place when the revenues of King Cotton largely sustained the economy of Britain. The Lancaster Canal is within easy access of many of these towns. It wends its way from Preston along the coastal plain of the North Fylde, flanked on its east by the moors and fells of the western spurs of the Pennines. It provides a walk which I am certain is almost unequalled in this country. It has a length of about 50 miles along the towpath of the canal, which would span the whole length of many a county in this country. I walked along it this weekend in order to have a final look at the subject of the debate, and I can assure the House that there can be very few more pleasant ways of seeking true recreation after the toil of the week than taking advantage of this quite exceptional facility.
It is also used by thousands of fishermen each year. Hon. Members who have seen hazy figures walking across the fields and stiles in the mists of a frosty morning know how highly valued is this pastime to those who spend their time confined in factory and workshop. It also provides facilities for pleasure craft, facilities which may be unique in Britain, because it is posible to negotiate 40 miles of this canal without being confronted by a single lock, and it provides access to the sea.
May I turn to the part of the canal for which relief from the obligation to maintain it for navigation is sought in the Bill? The Schedule to the Bill refers to 11 miles, 1,327 yards as being the length for which the relief is sought. Of this, some three miles south of Tewitfield Locks is now freely used by pleasure craft. Of the remaining length north of Tewitfield Locks, much cannot be used because of the locks having fallen into disrepair, despite the statutory obligation of the authorities; they could be used by pleasure craft even at present if access could be given to them.
This stretch of the Lancaster Canal north of Tewitfield is possibly the most beautiful of all. I submit that it is extremely likely that, if other factors had not been operating, ways would have been found within the next few years


to repair the locks and restore a considerable further section of this part of the canal for use by pleasure craft. After having viewed these locks I can assure hon. Members that most of the mechanism to make them work is in order and I submit that most of the repairs which need to be done would have been undertaken within the next few years because of the nationwide growth in popularity of all kinds of boating and sailing; indeed, not only nationwide but worldwide. One of the developments in recreation in recent years has been the wish of many people to get on the water and enjoy themselves in this way.
My belief is that this enthusiasm, which has already led to a doubling of the pleasure craft on British Waterways canals in the last decade, would have been reinforced by the establishment of the University of Lancaster, which opened its portals only in October last and which has projected student numbers of 2,600 by the early 1970s. The canal is literally on the doorstep of the university. I draw the attention of the House, in this connection, to page 46 of the Report of the British Waterways Board to the Minister of Transport dated 12th December, 1963; only 14 months ago. Headed "Lancaster Canal (Tewitfield to Crowpark Bridge)" it stated:
The northernmost stretch of this length of canal (Stainton Feeder to Crowpark Bridge), having been originally de-watered to avoid serious loss of water due to fissures in the bed, has now been closed to navigation. In view of the serious state of this 3¾ miles stretch it seems that its adaptation to agricultural use may be the only practical outcome. The remaining 8½ miles (Tewitfield to Stainton) is important from the water supply point of view, although there are some engineering problems. These will need further study but it seems clear that their solution, in order to preserve the water supply, could include provision for pleasure boating; this will depend to a considerable extent on the detailed financial facts still to be ascertained.
I believe, in view of the growing interest in this type of activity, that ways would have been found of restoring this section of the canal, that it is just this type of amenity which Parliament and local authorities wish to see preserved and that they would have come to the assistance of the canal to bring this about, provided that no other factors had been present. There was certainly nothing in the British Waterways Report of 14 months ago to suggest that the

Board itself was contemplating the relief being sought in the Bill.
The new factor, of course, is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, who has the ultimate responsibility for the construction of the much-needed and eagerly awaited M.6 motorway extension from Carnforth to Penrith. It is right that the Minister should be cost conscious. If he were to execute all the suggestions put to him he would need a bottomless purse. Indeed, I have a few I could suggest to him in my constituency.
Nevertheless, cost should not be the only consideration. Proper account should be taken of amenity because it is far too easy for amenity to become an unconsidered casualty of Departmental convenience, and once this has happened it is irrevocable and no action can be taken to restore the situation. Nor would I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should be the sole judge in the matter. I referred to the comments in the election manifestoes of the two main parties. I hope that, in this matter of the preservation of amenity, the Minister of Land and Natural Resources will discharge the functions which we proposed from this side of the House should be discharged by a countryside commission.
I must confess to being disappointed because, while I know that he has other preoccupations, I think that in this respect the right hon. Gentleman is the phantom Minister of the present Government. At any rate, I sincerely hope that the Minister of Transport will pay full account to any views which may be submitted to him from the other Departments. A judgment must be made in this matter. Cost and amenity must be weighed in the balance. I believe that in this case, at any rate in some directions, the cost has been exaggerated. I certainly do not believe that the relief sought in the Bill is necessary in the form in which it is sought; and that is why we are moving this Motion for an Instruction to the Committee.
The Minister has agreed to provide clearance sufficient to permit pleasure craft to continue to use the canal to within a few hundred yards of Tewitfield, and I thank him for the kind and full Answers which he has given to the somewhat technical Questions we have put on the Order Paper to him on this subject.


These are appreciated by the hon. Members concerned. I gather that the Petition which was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman by certain of my constituents, who wish that the access points to the M.6 should not destroy the whole of the hamlet of Tewitfield, may receive sympathetic consideration in view of the costings that have been supplied by the Ministry of Transport in reply to the Parliamentary Questions put to the right hon. Gentleman.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that he will provide clearance sufficient to permit pleasure craft to continue to use the canal to within a few hundred yards of Tewitfield, that these boats need to turn round, that they are not running on railways lines like a railway engine and that the facilities for turning round are immediately below the locks at Tewitfield. It would not be very expensive to carry the A.6070 over both the motorway and the canal, so that the full length in present use could continue to be used by pleasure craft.
We are not asking that British Waterways should be obliged to continue to undertake its existing statutory obligations in respect of this length of the canal, which, I believe, are for maintaining it for navigation by wide barges. We are asking that very careful examination indeed should be made of the maximum length of the canal which may be preserved for pleasure craft and that no irrevocable decision should be taken to prevent other lengths being brought back into use.
This is a case where one could say that this is truly a unique amenity. Once the initial capital cost has been met, we do not think that the annual maintenance costs involved in keeping this stretch suitable for pleasure craft would be very great. We therefore ask that the Committee should be instructed to delete the Clauses specified because, as they stand, they will open the door to the permanent destruction of an amenity that is irreplaceable, and which my hon. Friends and I feel could very largely be preserved.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: After the debate on Northern Ireland, in which I also took part, I am in grave danger of being known in my constituency as the "hon. Member for Northern Ireland and the Lancaster

Canal". In a debate on sports and recreational facilities in the House on 4th December, 1964, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) stated:
The Government are extremely well aware of the potentialities of using the canal system for recreational purposes. We are giving special attention to this aspect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1011.]
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who so recently gave us so much pleasure and satisfaction by his decision to keep open the Manchester-Bury line, whether he could not give the same satisfaction and pleasure by a similar decision with respect to the northern reaches of the Lancaster Canal.
This canal passes through some of the most delightful countryside in Britain. It is now within easy reach of the crowded conurbations of the North and the Midlands, since the M.6 provides an unbroken carriageway from Birmingham to the north of Lancaster. It is also within an hour's car run of my constituency and my home. It is used by a large number of organisations in the industrial areas. I have received a strong representation from Lieut.-Commander Hudson, of the Farnworth and District Cadet Corps, so that this is not something of interest only to those hon. Members who sit for constituencies abutting the canal.
Many of us on this side of the House are well aware of the recreational facilities which the canal provides for the densely-populated areas they represent. My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), and for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) have all taken an interest in this subject, because we are all increasingly aware that a large number of families are seeking their pleasure on our lakes, beaches and canals, attracted by this curious magnetism of water.
The Central Council of Physical Recreation published last July a survey of the recreational use of our inland waterways in the Midlands, which pointed out:
… pleasure craft hire firms, river and canal cruising has markedly increased during the last 15 years.


That is the trend, and I believe that it is a trend that will continue in the years to come. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend and the House to pause for thought before denying to an area with too few facilities a potential source of recreation merely for the sake of a small saving to the public purse. The closing of the upper reaches of the Lancaster canal to navigation would be irreversible—not something that could be done, and later undone.
In a Written Answer to me on 5th February, my right hon. Friend estimated that it would cost about £40,000 to restore the eight miles between Tewitfield and Stainton, although the remaining four miles would cost considerably more. Here I would pay tribute, as has the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), to the excellent and helpful way in which my right hon. Friend has answered Questions on this subject.
My right hon. Friend's figure of £40,000 may be debatable—it appears to be somewhat pessimistic. One estimate I have read put it at only £10,000. However, taking into account the support that would be forthcoming, both physical and financial, from local organisations interested, that sum of £40,000 would not in itself be any obstacle, And this division of the figure between the eight miles north of Tewitfield and the further four miles might provide some basis for a compromise.
What, presumably, is causing my right hon. Friend a great deal of concern is the necessity for bridges at six intersections of the M.6 with the canal. I was most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his Answer on 26th January stating that he has agreed to permit
… sufficient clearance to permit pleasure craft to continue to use the 42 miles of canal they at present use, except possibly, for a few hundred yards at Tewitfield."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 186.]
In seeking relief from statutory requirements relating to that part of the canal north of Lancaster itself, it is probably the financial consideration that weighs most heavily with my right hon. Friend. I would, therefore, ask him to look again at the problem of these intersections, because from my understanding three of the six only occur

at one point close to Tewitfield by reason of what I understand to be a proposed cloverleaf junction. I am pleased to see that in a Written Answer today my right hon. Friend says:
The possibility of reducing the number of crossings near Tewitfield to two by removing a proposed motorway interchange is now being considered.
Is it beyond the wit of man to avoid the use of this junction at all? I understand the difficulties involved, but it may be possible to take other steps to modify the projected motorway route in order to avoid half of these crossings. There may be good reasons for the choice, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to inform us on this point.
I must again ask that the additional costs should be weighed against the loss of amenity value in the north-west area for all time. Some hon. Members have proved very adept in blocking up canals far more celebrated than this one, but I would refer to the many people who would be grateful for the keeping open of the full length of this canal. I know that 5,000 anglers use the canal regularly, and they fear that disuse of the northern end would render it a stagnant, dirty ditch, because the northern end would be overgrown and also, because of the intersections by the motorway, the repair barge would not be able to traverse the northern section.
Some industries are supplied with water by this canal, and if the proposed action were taken one would have to take into account the cost of building an expensive pipeline for a supply of water. In addition, 10,000 people travel each year on the "Lady Fionna" pleasure barge, and now that others are being introduced to this pastime every year one can expect at least that number to sample this recreation next year. There are also 700 people who make use of the five holiday craft of Norwest Hire Cruisers, Calgate, and there are also the many enthusiasts fortunate enough to have their own boats.
Above all, I believe that the holiday potential of the North-West generally is underestimated or not understood by the country as a whole. As has been pointed out, the canal has more than a quarter of the amount of water contained in the Norfolk Broads, and can become a remarkable 50-mile elongated park, providing recreation for the crowded smaller conurbations of the North. I hope that


when the Bill goes to Committee, due consideration will be given to these matters and that, in some way, this delightful stretch of waterway will not be lost to future generations.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I rise to support the Instruction, having listened attentively to the two most excellent speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). Both hon. Members spoke about the amenity value of this most lovely and splendid canal. I do not believe that either over-stated the case, or the importance of the Government's duty to provide places of amenity so that people can go there and spend their new leisure.
I am glad that the Instruction is being supported by all parties. I am also glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is in his place. I, hope that he will take careful note of the fact that the feeling on this matter is not a party feeling, but is an all-party feeling which is very representative of feeling in the north-west of England.
I, too, have taken the opportunity within the last 10 days of visiting the northern stretches of the Lancaster Canal. It is a canal which I knew reasonably well before this, because most of the northern-stretch, north of Tewitfield, passes through my constituency, but it is one which I took great pleasure in getting to know much better. It is one of the most lovely places I can think of outside the Lake District itself, in my constituency. The canal is an historic place. It was constructed by John Rennie, who was a great canal constructor. The great Hincaster Tunnel, which is now sadly dewatered, is, I believe, one of the finest examples of John Rennie's canal architecture in the whole land.
The debate is a matter of great interest to many of my constituents. Apart from my constituency of Westmorland, which contains most of the stretch of the canal, the debate is of interest to many more people living in the north-west of England, because the northern terminal of the new motorway, the M.6, is slightly to the south of the Tewitfield Locks. This means that access from the great industrial conurbation of Lancashire to the

Lake District and, indeed, to the northern stretches of the canal is made a great deal easier.
Another point, which is of even greater concern to many in the North-West, is that as the motorway becomes developed—I think that this year we will see its development—there will be not only an influx of people from Lancashire, Cheshire and Yorkshire, but also a tremendous influx of tourists from the Midlands. It is true that the Lake District and the beauties and amenities of this part of the world are now within day-trip distance of such places as Birmingham and Wolverhampton. People from these places must be catered for.
This point was brought out by the two hon. Members who have already spoken. I do not intend to continue on this theme, except to point out one figure which is of great importance. The cruising revenue which has accrued from inland waterways has doubled over the last five years. This is a very good example of the rapid and dynamic growth in cruising on inland waterways.
I want to say a few words about the economic side of the Instruction. We suggest that the Minister should change his mind on the matter of bridging the canal where the motorway passes. We suggest that he should not build culverts at these crossings but should built either bridges or aquatic creeps. Mr. Speaker, you may wonder, as I did, what an aquatic creep is. When I first saw the expression, I was a little uncertain as to its meaning. If in a debate on the affairs of the Royal Navy an hon. Member referred to one of the Ministers in charge of the Royal Navy as an aquatic creep, I have no doubt that you, Sir, would very strictly and quickly rule him out of order. As I understand it, an aquatic creep is rather smaller than a bridge, but is just large enough for a pleasure craft to pass. We ask the Minister to try to bring such a construction into the scheme rather than culverts, because if culverts were built no pleasure craft could pass.
Like my hon. Friend, I am most obliged to the Minister for the Answers I have received today and previously. They have been very helpful. We are all most grateful for them. I have asked what the cost would be of providing bridges, creeps, and culverts at the six proposed crossings by the motorway of the canal


between Tewitfield and Millness Bridge. I have been told today that the extra cost of building creeps above the cost of culverting would be in the region of £210,000. This is the key figure which we must work on.
I have learned from another Answer I have received today that the first proposed crossing between the motorway bridge and Kellet Lane Bridge is now to be built so that it will accommodate pleasure craft. For this we are most grateful, because it means, as I understand it, that pleasure craft will now be able to come to within 100 yards or a few hundred yards of the Tewitfield Locks.
I repeat that we must consider the key figure of £210,000, which is the extra cost of providing aquatic creeps over the cost of culverting. We must ask ourselves whether we are prepared to pay this price for the continuance and furtherance of the amenity value of this stretch of the canal north of Tewitfield Locks. I believe that the Kennet and Avon Canal, which was saved some years ago for pleasure craft, loses no less than £50,000 a year. If this is true, perhaps it would not be too much to ask the Minister to indulge in an extra spending on motorway construction of £210,000 to preserve the amenity over the top 8½ miles of the canal.
I am pleased to hear that there is the possibility that the Tewitfield interchange will be moved and that the first two crossings may well be avoided. I hope so. If this could be done, it would still further reduce the figure of £210,000 which must be balanced against the amenity value.
I hope that the Minister will take a serious and close look at the possibility even at this stage of moving the line of the motorway. Within the last few weeks he has altered the line of the motorway at a place a little further north than Tewitfield. I understand that in a letter dated 4th February last the Minister said that it was possible that changes might still be made in the line of the motorway. If it is possible still for the Minister to examine the line of the motorway, we may be able to reduce the figure of £210,000 which is what it will cost to give the public this new use of the top 8½ miles of the canal.
I should like to turn to the consequences which I believe would ensue if

the Bill went through. It would mean that this canal would be divided up into a series of unconnected strips. It would be very difficult and expensive to maintain. The repair barge would not be able to pass at the places where the canal was culverted and crossed by the motorway. This would impose an extra cost on the British Waterways Board.
As has already been said, this canal supplies water to industry further south. It supplies 3 million gallons a day to industry in Lancashire. This water comes from Killington reservoir which is between Kendal and Sedbergh, and, whatever happens to the Bill—whether the Minister changes it or whether the Bill goes through as it is—this water supply has got to be maintained and the canal must be kept in a state of repair in order to maintain the supply.
In addition, serious health problems will arise if the canal is not used and properly maintained. I should like to mention only one case which happened last summer. The Holme Parish Council last summer had to go to considerable trouble and expense to clean out the canal where it is piped in. and this is a foretaste of what would happen if the canal were culverted.
It might be said, "If the Minister said that he was prepared to allow aquatic creeps to be built at the crossings of this canal, what would be likely to happen to this northern stretch? How would it be developed?" There is a most enthusiastic and active restoration association in being. I was lucky enough to look at the canal the weekend before last with the northern area secretary of the restoration association, and a more enthusiastic supporter of the restoration of this canal it would be impossible to meet. If the Minister were to agree to put creeps on the canal there is no question that this work would be done.
As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley said, the Minister has already stated that the cost of restoring the top stretch of the canal which is not at the moment navigable would be in the region of £40,000. I have been given a figure of about £10,000 by the restoration association. There is, of course, some difference here, and I believe that this is not unknown in the past. I am told that when the Stratford Canal was restored,


some years ago, it was done for £6,000, whereas the estimate of the Waterways Board was many times greater. The estimate of the cost of restoration suggested by the Board was entirely out of step with what the restoration actually cost. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the figure for the restoration work of the northern stretches of this canal would be likely to be nearer £10,000 than £40,000. One of the experts of the Inland Waterways Association has suggested that the locks could be restored for £3,000, and I believe it is nearer the truth.
The other work, quite apart from restoring the lock gates, with which it is important to deal in the northern stretches of the canal, is the reinstatement of the fissured section at Holme, which is at present concreted in. Here again great savings could be made in building a concrete flue so that pleasure craft could go through. The bottom of the canal is seriously fissured, but I understand that if the Minister would agree, a great deal of assistance could be given in the form of prison labour from the nearby camp, and a local unit of the Territorial Army Engineers would be very glad to prepare the bed of the canal at this place in preparation for concreting, as military experience. All these facts suggest that the restoration work could be done locally if the Minister would agree.
I am told that the Inland Waterways Association is adept at raising money for these restoration jobs. In fact, I understand that some years ago it raised £8,000 at one dinner. Those of us who are interested in the financing of politics could perhaps learn a lesson from this and we might invite the secretary of the association to give us advice on how to raise money.
I am confident that this work could be done if the Minister would sanction the building of creeps rather than culverts. Thinking further ahead, having spoken to the enthusiastic members and supporters of the restoration association, I consider that it might be possible by raising money, by getting help locally from the Territorial Army detachment and from prison labour, to restore the section above where the dam is at Stain-ton. This would bring back into being

the famous Hincaster tunnel which is one of John Rennie's masterpieces. The National Trust has described it as a tunnel constructed in Rennie's grandest Roman manner. If the Minister would give his approval to the scheme further down, it is possible that the restoration association would be keen to restore the parts above Stainton. That part which goes into Kendal town has now been filled in, and I am afraid that it is now beyond repair, although there are still enthusiasts who are determined to carry on the canal and take it right back to Kendal town where it originally went to.
I have spoken of the effects of building the M.6 into the north-west of England. It will have a tremendous impact on the Lake District. I know that the Minister has already been made aware of the problems caused by the new influx of tourists from the Midlands into the Lake District in the north-west of England. He has already been bombarded by constituents of mine with requests to press on with the Kendal Western by-pass. It is only a symptom of this great inflow of tourists in ever-increasing numbers in the next few years from all over the country, but particularly, I think, from the Midlands.
Let us make no mistake about who is the boss, so far as the Bill is concerned. Although the Bill is presented by the British Waterways Board, I do not think any of us has any doubts that the Minister of Transport is the boss, and that this Private Bill has been brought forward under his direction. I believe that the Minister has a great responsibility here at this time. It is true to say that canals are nearly always romantic places. One knows that no Minister can visit every place over which he has control, but if the Minister were to visit this section of this canal I am sure that he would agree that it is probably one of the most romantic places of all. I am sure that it would be used by a tremendous number of tourists and people who come to the area to sail, to walk, and to fish and also to pursue studies of natural history
The Minister has an awesome responsibility in deciding whether he is going to preserve this magnificent place or whether he is going to crush it. He has a responsibility which is as simple as that, and just as difficult to determine.


The Minister has shown us in the course of the term of office of this Government that he is not tied to considerations which depend only on costs. He has shown us this with railways. I hope that this time he will put considerations of costs rather low down his priorities and that he will think of amenities. In motorway bridging he has been extremely helpful about agricultural priorities, where new motorways have been built, in helping farmers to cross new trunk roads.
I hope that this time he will regard the expense and the extra capital expenditure on preserving this section of the northern part of the Lancaster Canal as a relative fleabite in comparison to the tremendous pleasure and the tremendous amenity value which he will open up for many thousands of people. I hope that the Minister will be bold and will do what we ask him.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: As a Yorkshire Member I almost feel that I should ask leave of the House to intervene in the debate, but I should like to say a few words before the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies, first to congratulate hon. Members from the Lancashire constituencies who from both sides of the House have made their eloquent pleas in support of the Motion. Secondly, I should like to speak on my own account because of my concern that in these days no amenity that could be reasonably preserved should unnecessarily be lost to the many people who might have the opportunity of benefiting from it in the future.
The reason why we are faced with this Bill is not that the Waterways Board is embarking on any wholesale programme of canal closures. The reverse is very much the case. We are faced with this question because the Lancaster Canal will be traversed in seven places by the motorway, and the plans for the construction of the motorway have become so far advanced that the Parliamentary Secretary must take a decision not only about the route of the motorway and how many times it will be obliged to traverse the canal but what kind of crossings are to be constructed to carry the motorway and its associated roads across the canal.
It is a fact that if the Bill were to be defeated or this Instruction upheld and

the canal were to continue as a statutory navigation, certain costs would have to be incurred greater than those which need to be incurred if the navigation lapses. The obligation upon the Waterways Board and hence upon the Minister of Transport to continue statutory navigation throughout the length of the canal would impose upon the Minister or his agents in the construction of the motorway certain specifications for the crossings involving the construction of bridges which would result in additional cost.
If by the Bill the Board or the Minister is relieved of the obligation to maintain a navigation it would be possible to have cheaper crossings—culverts or bridges or possibly the third alternative explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling)—aquatic creeps.
May I summarise the likely effect on the canal if the Instruction does not stand? I take first the southern section, the 40 miles or so running northwards from Preston to Carnforth. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has given an assurance that at Carnforth, the first place affected, there will be a bridge and not a culvert and therefore, whatever happens to the Bill, the navigation will be preserved. I understand that the hon. Gentleman gave that assurance in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose).

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): indicated assent.

Mr. Ramsden: I am glad to have that confirmation.
The next difficulty would come as a result of the crossing or crossings just south of the flight of locks at Tewitfield. It is hoped that the Minister may be able to agree to construct a bridge there rather than a culvert. I hope that in deciding what is appropriate he will bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Blackley—that the boats must have somewhere to turn round. At the moment there is wider piece of canal—I am not sure of the technical term for it—at the foot of the locks where the boats can manoeuvre, turn round and go back southwards.
If it is the Minister's intention that navigation over the southern 40 miles is to continue, and if this turning point


is cut off from the south by a culvert it would be necessary, presumably, to construct another one to allow the boats to turn round. I hope that in considering whether to have a culvert or a bridge the Minister will have offset in his calculation of what he can afford the cost of the construction of a fresh turning point if he isolates the existing one at the foot of the canal. I hope that he will come to the conclusion that a bridge will not be all that more expensive after all.
Northwards, the next point is the flight of locks at Tewitfield, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland explained is not yet in working order. Judging by experience with other canals in the south, it is by no means beyond the possibility of being put in order, either by funds raised by voluntary subscription or by the help of the Territorial Army, or in some other way. Only the lock gates need reconstruction. The masonry and chamber work of the locks are perfectly sound. If the locks were put in order it would be possible for navigation to be resumed on the northern section of the canal at some future time.
The northern section is not for the moment in a fit state for navigation up and down its length, but I understand that it has to be kept up in the sense that it has to be kept full of water because there is a water undertaking with responsibility for the supply of water and the whole stretch cannot be let go. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) quoted the Report of the Inland Waterways Board as saying that, in its view, it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that it might be made navigable again.
As regards the problem set by the motorway on the northern section, there are two or, perhaps, three possible ways of proceeding. The Minister might go for culverts or conduits instead of bridges. He might go, as we hope, for bridges, in which case he will have conceded the point we make. Thirdly, there might be a compromise course, a combination of bridges and aquatic creeps to let pleasure boats through.
If he goes for culverts, the following consequences will undoubtedly ensue for the canal, all of which would be in

the highest degree undesirable. First, culverts would rule out for ever the possibility of these 12 miles ever being restored as a navigable waterway. The effect would be that, very quickly, the existing watercourse, although it still has to be maintained as a reservoir, would become silted and weeded up. Whereas it is now used, I think, by 5,000 anglers a year—that was the figure given—if it became silted up and weed choked, it would very soon lose all its value as a fishery. What maintains the value of a stretch of water as a fishery is boats moving to and fro and suppressing by their passage the growth of weed.
I have not had the opportunity to get in touch with the Anglers' Co-operative Association about this, but, from my previous experience of the Association in connection with a Bill about river pollution, I know how active it is in support of the interests of anglers throughout the country. I know what a very powerful lobby it is, deservedly so, and how wide is its support among many people, of all parties and of none. I have no doubt that the Anglers' Co-operative Association will be very seriously concerned about the possibility of the deterioration of 12 miles or more of freshwater fishery. Such a fishery is a most important amenity in these days when good fishing water is so short. The British Waterways Board in its Report rather under-estimates the value of freshwater fisheries of this kind. This is a consideration which the Minister would be well advised to bear very carefully in mind. It is a valuable fishery.
On the question of culverts versus bridges, it is a fact that, at present, the line of this canal not only gives access for boats but for other users along the towpath under the existing bridges. A growing number of people now ride horses and go pony trekking. It is possible to walk undisturbed and untroubled by traffic along this towpath for 40 miles from industrial Lancashire in the south right up almost to the heart of the Lake District. It is one of the most beautiful 40-mile walks in the North Country today, though I confess that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale, I have not done it. There are thus two sorts of access provided, access for boats and access for pedestrians and horse riders.
The boat traffic can certainly be expected to grow. The horse traffic can be expected to grow. I speak as one who knows better the industrial districts on the other side of the Pennines, but perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that industrial Lancashire will continue to be a place out of which people will be glad to go on foot when they have a holiday. I have no doubt, therefore, that foot traffic also will increase.
When deciding about the motorway, the Minister would do well to consider also the problem of getting farm stock across these big roads. I have had experience of this in my own part of the country. Sometimes an underpass is made for the passage of cattle from one side of the road to the other, but very often it is not. It is not safe to drive cattle or sheep across these roads, especially across a long straight stretch in the middle of the day when traffic is at its peak.
I want the Minister to consider, if necessary with the Minister of Agriculture, whether he would, by going to the extra expense of building a bridge, facilitate at the same time the underpassage of stock beneath the motorway where it has to cross the canal, possibly saving some money which he might otherwise have to spend on making similar crossings for stock not very far away. It would be typical of the unsatisfactory sort of thing which does happen if one of the bridges was not built but a culvert was put there instead so that there was no access along the towpath, but about half a mile away an underpass was constructed to serve the needs of a farm. It may well be that, by co-ordination between the agricultural and other interests, a compromise could be arrived at which would make the cost of a bridge as opposed to a culvert look rather more in proportion.
To sum up, I reinforce what my hon. Friends have said. If the Minister decides to go for culverts on this canal and not the bridges, very many amenities will be destroyed which might have been preserved by a different solution. Putting it the other way, the cost of building bridges—I should no attempt to argue what the cost might be, and I hope that we shall hear from the Minister about it—is not really out of scale bearing in mind the advantages to amenity and in the other ways I have mentioned which would follow from the decision to build a bridge.
Perhaps, out of this debate a compromise may be found. There might be a middle way. I understand that some of the crossings are not the motorway itself crossing the canal but they are necessary for interchanges—feeder roads coming into the motor way or country roads crossing the motorway which have to cross the canal. In these cases, aquatic creeps might be acceptable, as a side road of that kind would not interrupt pedestrian access to the towpath in the same way as an enormous motor road would. Perhaps a compromise along those lines might be found.
I hope that the Minister will feel that the extra cost of keeping this navigation in some form will be worth it from the amenity point of view. It has been said with truth that a canal like this, with a towpath and a right of way along its entire length is in some sense a kind of linear national park. These are 40 miles of country through which people may pass and have their walks enlivened by all the variety and charm of a riverside scene. In these days, that is something which we cannot contemplate destroying without considerable heart-searching. It is something really worth preserving and, if the road is thrown across these 40 miles unbridged, it will destroy its continuity and a great deal of its value.
The canal might well come back into use one day for pleasure craft. The proposed route of the motorway and the extra cost of the bridging ought to be looked at both on the assumption that the canal may be more widely used for pleasure traffic and in the knowledge that traffic in other ways along the towpath, by ramblers, horse riders arid so on, may very well increase.
We put forward our Motion because we believe that the Bill over-simplifies the problem—boils it down too much—by saying that the statutory navigation is to disappear. This makes us fear the worst. If power exists for cutting off the navigation completely, one's apprehensions are that these are the lengths to which the Minister may be forced to go by financial considerations. We have moved this Instruction in the hope that the Minister will not be tempted to go to those lengths. I believe that a compromise is possible. I believe that a balance could be struck between the full cost of the bridging and the destruction


of the amenity by culverting. I trust that the Minister will consider our arguments and examine the possibility very seriously. I hope he will be able to give us an assurance about this.
I do not know whether my hon. Friends will want to divide the House on this or not. I am sure that it depends on what assurances the Minister can give us. We desire, first, that the Committee should weigh the arguments and considerations that we have advanced, and, secondly, that the Minister—I believe that he will have the final say on this—should examine them, too, and, if possible, arrive at a solution striking a just balance between the financial considerations which we realise must have a foremost place in his mind, and the amenity considerations which have animated those who have taken part in the debate.

8.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I am grateful to the House for having given an unopposed Second Reading to the Bill. I must point out straight away that if the Instruction were accepted it would take the guts out of the Bill and virtually kill it. It would even kill, for example, a provision which I am sure all canal users would regard as a constructive one, that giving the British Waterways Board power to make a new cut into the Regents Canal Dock, which is the subject of about 10 of the 15 Clauses.
But this itself is dependent, as those who have read the Bill carefully will know, upon giving to the Board the power to make changes in the so-called Limehouse Cut. Acceptance of the Instruction would prevent the Board from being able to do that, and would, therefore, kill a proposal which I think would be acceptable on all sides.
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) who said that the boss in this regard was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am not, of course, speaking directly for the British Waterways Board, but we fully accept our measure of responsibility for what is proposed, and in a moment I shall be speaking directly to that because

it has to do with plans other than those for the use of our canals.
First, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) about the preservation of natural amenities. I hope that there will always be hon. Members from all sides prepared to speak up for the preservation of natural amenities, especially those coming from some of the more beautiful parts of the country, as has been the case in this debate.
I would assure my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) that from the earliest days of our assuming office in the Ministry of Transport my right hon. Friend and I have been in touch with the "Minister of Sport" about the recreational use of canals. We want to promote their maximum recreational use and encourage the enthusiastic, and we hope that this will be one of the ways of solving some of the very difficult problems with which the Board is faced.
But none of these considerations has an absolute value. None of them can be said to be totally overriding in any particular case. The country also wants motorways, and it wants them at a reasonable cost, as the hon. Member for Westmorland said. We also want a great many other roads which we cannot afford at the moment. We have to look at the bill very carefully in every case because we know that there is always someone else who would like to spend the money in another part of the country in improving transport facilities, especially by the provision of roads.
The Bill was promoted by the British Waterways Board under Section 17 of the Transport Act, 1962. Here we come parenthetically to an all-party consideration, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale, with the consent of the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). My right hon. Friend inherited that situation, and he has completed the all-party position by endorsing the plan made by the former Minister of Transport.
I come straight away to the main burden of the argument of the hon. Members who have criticised the Bill and spoken in favour of the Instruction,


especially in regard to the Lancaster Canal. I sincerely hope that what I have to say will persuade them to withdraw the Motion at the end of the debate and enable the Bill to go to Committee where it can be thoroughly examined and the arguments for and against it heard.
Many hon. Members have spoken in particular about the effect of the Bill on the canal north of Carnforth, where it is affected by the proposed M.6 crossings. As has been pointed out, Clause 14, taken with the Schedule, would extinguish the rights of navigation on that section of the canal, and in consequence the Board would no longer be obliged to maintain the canal so that it could be used by commercial barge traffic. That is all we are concerned with in regard to the Board's statutory powers. The effect of the Clause is that the Board would be able to plan the future of the canal in a realistic way having regard to its possible uses in the second half of the twentieth century. It would be freed from any obligation to provide for goods traffic, an obligation which at the present time we regard as having no sense at all.
In fact, as I think the debate has shown, there is really no dispute about the prospects of the canal for goods traffic. Frankly, the prospects are nil. No commercial barges have used the stretch for a very long time. But because of the existing statutory position the Board is still legally obliged to maintain its navigable width to the full standard that commercial barges would require—that is to say, in the Board's present view, a width of navigable waterway of 16 ft. 6 in., a 10 ft. towpath and a headroom under bridges of 8½ ft.
Those are the standards which are thought appropriate. Consequently, unless the Board is relieved of this obligation, wide bridges would have to be constructed, at great expense, at the six or seven points where the proposed M.6 motorway or the roads that are intended to join it will cross the canal. It is estimated that the total cost of all these wide bridges built to the standards that I have mentioned would be £468,000.
Let us look a little more closely at the state of the canal and the traffic using it at the places where the proposed

motorway crossings are needed. There will be two or possibly three crossings south of Tewitfield Locks. The most southerly crossing is near Carnforth and there is also the slip road which may be needed to the interchange at Tewitfield itself. If that slip road is needed, it will cross the canal about 300 yards south of Tewitfield Locks.
This stretch of the canal is used by pleasure craft. The British Waterways Board and my right hon. Friend recognise this fact and, if the Bill is passed, a bridge will be provided at Carnforth allowing the passage of pleasure craft. The bridge will provide headroom of 8ft. 6 ins., a 12 ft. waterway and a 6ft. towpath. It will cost the Department—or, rather, the taxpayer—£92,600, which is £70,000 more than it would cost to put an embankment over the canal with culverts for canal water and footpaths over the motorway.
The sum of £70,000 is substantial. It is about the same amount as the revenue derived by the Waterways Board annually from all the canals by the use of pleasure craft. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the bridge will serve a real social purpose and pleasure craft will continue to use the canal as they do at present up to Tewitfield Locks or, possibly, to a point 300 yards south of the locks, where a turning point will be provided. I hope that what I have said will give some measure of assurance to hon. Members that the recreational use of this stretch of the canal has been considered very seriously.

Mr. Ramsden: I asked the hon. Gentleman about the cost of the provision of the turning point. It would be useful if he could supply or obtain that figure.

Mr. Swingler: I will get it for the right hon. Gentleman and let him know what it is. I have not the figure with me, but only the cost of the bridge that we intend to provide. I can, however, give an assurance that a proper turning point will be provided as necessary.

Mr. John Wells: May we have an assurance that the turning point will be a full 70ft., so that a 70ft. boat can turn round there?

Mr. Swingler: Hon. Members must not be too suspicious about our plans. We have gone into this very carefully for


the benefit of those who wish to make recreational use of the canal. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my assurance. We are doing this at a not inconsiderable cost which is in addition to the rest of the motorway scheme. We shall do everything possible to see that this work is of a standard necessary for those who delight in this form of recreation.
What about the locks themselves and the stretch of the canal from Tewitfield to Stainton? I am informed that the locks are not now usable and that the eight-mile stretch to Stainton, although it still contains water, is not fit for navigation at all. The water level has been lowered 2ft. to prevent leakage through the banks while on one section, at Holme, serious loss of water through fissures in the bed of the canal has been dealt with by sealing off the section and taking the water through a pipe.
It is estimated that, besides involving heavy maintenance expenditure in future, to restore this length, including repairs to the locks, sufficiently to enable pleasure craft to pass, would cost the sum of £40,000. In these circumstances, is it really fit and sensible for us to build four bridges to take the motorway and its side roads over this stretch of canal? As some hon. Members have said, the estimated cost of providing even a lower standard bridge sufficient for pleasure craft to use the canal such as we will provide at Carnforth would amount, for the four crossings of the M.6 over this stretch, to a sum of £227,000, whereas the cost of the culverts would be only £27,000.
Thus, to provide for the possibility that, some future date, £40,000 might be found to restore this eight-mile stretch of canal, additional expenditure of £200,000 would have to be incurred in the construction of the motorway. A number of figures have been bandied about by hon. Members. One can refer to "only" £200,000 in addition to the enormous cost of the M.6, but, of course, I know many parts of the country where people would like a sum much less than £200,000 to spend on the improvement of the roads and we must be extremely careful in the Ministry of Transport, in considering all these projects, to bear in mind the needs and demands for money

and resources which are being made upon us from so many quarters.

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman is being very fair, but the House will be interested in an accurate comparison of these costs. When the hon. Gentleman gives the cost of culverting as against that of bridging, does he include the necessity, in the case of a culverting solution, for a footbridge to carry the towpath over the motorway and, therefore, preserving the right of way by the towpath and the facilities for people using it on foot?

Mr. Swingler: I am coming to the question of the towpath and I have a feeling that I may say something that will be found quite satisfactory by the right hon. Gentleman, so perhaps I had better leave it at that until later in my speech. But no doubt the right hon. Getnleman will recognise that I am not a technical expert on this matter and if he has questions of a technical nature I would prefer him to write to me, when can provide him with the best available figures and estimates.
It follows that those who are opposing the provisions in the Bill are, in fact, asking for an expenditure of about an extra £250,000 on this eight-mile stretch of canal. This seems to be out of all proportion to the benefit likely to be derived by the addition of these eight miles to the 42 miles which are already navigable and which, I am informed, are used by only about 250 craft. Indeed, we hope that there will be some increase in the use of the 42-mile section. But, I am advised that the £250,000 is more than double the sum which the Treasury pays in grant each year to the National Park authorities. As I have said, another comparison is with the total revenue coming annually to the British Waterways Board from the recreational use of canals, a sum of £70,000. When the £250,000 is seen in perspective in relation to our resources, it must be generally recognised that we could not possibly consent to the expenditure of such a large sum of money.
Unless the statutory right of commercial navigation is extinguished, we are compelled by the Statute to build wide bridges to the full commercial standard, an extra width of no use to anybody and for which no potential user of the canal is asking. The cost of such wide bridges


on the whole stretch would amount to nearly £500,000.
It has been suggested that the line of the motorway should be shifted in order to avoid crossing the canal at all. The draft line for the M.6 was published by the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Wallasey after extremely lengthy and careful consideration. It covers an extension of the motorway of about 36 miles, of which only a short length is affected by the canal. As always, there were considerable difficulties. Once the line had been finally selected, consideration was given to the possibility of moving it up to half a mile either side of the canal near Tewitfield.
However, movement to the west would have involved crossing a main railway line at two points, involving considerable costs and disturbance, and movement to the east would have involved considerable engineering difficulties and a great deal of agricultural severance. Having once settled on the general line of the motorway, these canal crossings were inevitable in order to avoid great additional cost and difficulty.
I have been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) and others whether the towpath will be preserved as a continuous pedestrian way. The Bill does nothing to remove any public right of way for pedestrians on the towpath of the canal. The whole of the towpath in Westmorland is already scheduled as a right of way and my right hon. Friend will be required to preserve it in constructing the motorway. Although the towpath in Lancashire is not so scheduled it will clearly have to be maintained along the whole of the length which remains open to pleasure craft.
This leaves only a short length from just south of the Tewitfield flight to the Westmorland border. If the Bill is passed and the proposals for the crossings are put into effect, my right hon. Friend proposes to ensure that access to the towpath is preserved, thus maintaining a continuous pedestrian way of more than 50 miles. This can be done quite simply by footpath diversions on the crossings concerned. The additional cost is about £2,000, which we believe should be spent in order to preserve this continuous pedestrian way.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Can I ask the hon. Gentleman for an assurance which may

have some bearing on whether we press the Instruction to a Division? It is feared that the present canal will fall into an unpleasant state and become overgrown and weed ridden, and so on. Can he give an assurance that he will at least discuss with the Waterways Board the possibility of ensuring that those sections of the canal which are cut off, as appears to be proposed, are kept full of water and attractive to look at for people who walk along this exceptional country way, which is very like the Pennine Way in what it has to offer? Can we have an assurance that the canal will not be allowed to decline into a festering ditch?

Mr. Swingler: We are looking somewhat into the future and I do not know all the technical difficulties involved, but on behalf of my right hon. Friend I readily give the assurance that he will discuss with the Waterways Board that suggestion and all others which have been made in the debate.
I hope that what I have said will have shown that we have gone into these criticisms extremely carefully at all stages. I hope that what I have said will satisfy those who have criticised these provisions and will demonstrate that we are concerned about maintaining the use of canals for recreational purposes where we can and that that is one of the things we want to promote.
In the light of that and the other assurances which I have given, I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to withdraw the Instruction, which would have the effect of killing the whole Bill, on the understanding that it will go to Committee, where it will be carefully and comprehensively scrutinised with opportunities for different points of view to be considered. The Bill would then be able to return to the House for hon. Members to decide whether my right hon. Friend's proposals were right. I hope that the Bill will go forward now to be considered in Committee.

Mr. Hall-Davis: In the light of the assurances given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, particularly the one about the preservation of the appearance of the canal, which is of great importance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: So that the House may concentrate on the issue between the promoters of the Bill and those of us who object to it, I do not wish to move the first Motion on the Order Paper, That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clauses 8 to 11 of the Bill.
I will take the explanation of Clauses 8 to 11 from the statement which the promoters of the Bill have circulated among hon. Members. Clause 8 is explained in paragraph 4 in these words:
By Clause 8 the Coporation seek new powers to deal with a growing problem arising in connection with the making of excavations for building and other purposes near streets".
At the beginning of paragraph 5 it is stated:
Where insufficient provision is made in the carrying out of such excavations for maintaining support for an adjoining street the street may be so damaged or its foundations so weakened as to necessitate the closing of the street to traffic until the necessary repairs are effected".
Paragraph 7 reads:
It is therefore proposed in Clause 8 to make specific provision to require steps to be taken in such cases to ensure that support for the street is not removed and further to provide that, if in the course of making an excavation support for the street is withdrawn so as to make it reasonably necessary for the Corporation to close the street for public use, the person responsible for the excavation shall be subject to substantial penalties".
Therefore, Clause 8 deals specifically with excavations near streets, and if those excavations cause subsidence of the street the person responsible for the excavations is to be made criminally liable and subject to certain rather heavy penalities.
Clause 9 is described in paragraph 10 of the promoter's statement in the following words:

Clause 9 deals generally with dangers to the public in streets from building operations including demolition works".
Clause 12 states:
It is accordingly proposed in Clause 9 that a general duty of care in respect of persons in adjoining streets should be imposed on persons carrying out building operations and that further provision should be made to render the person responsible liable to a fine in the event of an occurrence in the course of such building operations which gives rise to the risk of serious bodily injury to persons in a street".
Clause 9 is distinguishable from Clause 8 in that Clause 9 is concerned with building operations near the street whereas Clause 8 deals with excavations near the street.
May I look at the Bill in a little more detail? The person who is to be criminally liable under the Bill, if the occasion so arises, is, according to Clause 8(2):
the person responsible for the making of the excavation or the execution of such works as aforesaid".
Similarly in Clause 9(2) he is
the person responsible for the part of the building operations in the course of the carrying out of which such accident or occurrence happens … 
The person responsible is again described in subsection (4) of Clause 8 and in subsection (4) of Clause 9. It is stated in the former that
the owner of the land on which an excavation is made shall be taken as being the person responsible for the making of the excavation
and in Clause 9(4) that
the owner of the land or building on which building operations are carried out shall be taken as being the person responsible for those operations.
Therefore, both in the case of excavations near the street causing any subsidence to the street and of building operations near the street which give rise to a danger to the public in the street, it is the owner whom the Corporation can prosecute.
Upon prosecution, the owner is then put upon proof of his innocence. He can succeed in escaping conviction under that charge if he overcomes four obstacles which are set out in Clause 10. Under Clause 10, if the owner is prosecuted he will escape conviction only if, first, he lays information against a person
who undertook or had in his charge or subject to his direction the execution of the works in question or the carrying out of the operations in question (as the case may be)".


Having laid information against such person, it falls to him to prove in court that the person whom he has brought to court in that way is the person
who undertook or had in his charge or subject to his direction the execution of the works".
Those two obstacles—having laid the information and proved that this was the person who had charge of the work—having been overcome, the owner must then proceed to the third obstacle and prove that he himself
has used all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence
and, fourthly, that the person whom he has brought before the court
committed the offence without his"—
the owner's—
consent, connivance or wilful default".
The House may well think that those are four rather formidable obstacles for an owner to prove if he is charged merely because excavations on his land cause a subsidence to the street or merely because building operations on his land gave rise to a risk of danger to the public in the street.
The Corporation, in its statement to the House, says that these are new powers and new provisions, and certainly they are. They are provisions which previously have been unknown to the law. They are provisions which make an owner criminally liable for the acts of his contractor—not for the acts of his servant or his agent—because a contractor is what is known in the law as an independent contractor.
The existing law is fairly though briefly stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the promoters' statement. The second sentence of paragraph 5 reads:
Where a street has to be closed great public inconvenience is caused and loss may be suffered both by persons using the street so closed and by other persons who use the streets into which the traffic is diverted.
At the beginning of paragraph 6 it states:
The Corporation as the highway authority can usually recover from the person responsible for carrying out the excavation the cost of repairs to the street but this is a comparatively small sum.
The Corporation seeks to remedy this position of being able to collect only the cost of repairing the street, and no compensation for the inconvenience to which the public is put, not by claiming any

compensation for the grave public inconvenience which has been caused, nor by prosecuting the contractor, the person who does the act which results in the damage, but by prosecuting the owner.
Two reasons are given, again in the Corporation's statement, for prosecuting the owner. The first is that he may have a contract by which the contractor pays liquidated damages for delay in completion, and the fear of having to pay those damages may—again I underline the word "may"—make the contractor take risks in trying to complete on time.
It is the argument of the Corporation that because the owner has a normal building contract with the contractor he is to be criminally liable for the acts of the contractor. This liquidated damages Clause is one which is accepted by the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Civil Engineers and all others who provide normal forms of contract for construction work.
The second reason given for making an owner criminally liable is that he has knowledge of the contractual arrangements. One does not normally need to charge a person with a crime in order to obtain the evidence with which to charge somebody else. If the owner has the evidence on which to charge the person responsible, then the Corporation can subpoena the owner to produce the necessary documents. Has there really been any case in which when a charge has occurred the owner has refused to produce information about contractual arrangements between him and his contractor? It seems to me an extraordinary doctrine to put forward in this statement from the Corporation that one has to charge with a crime the witnesses whose evidence is against the man who really committed the crime. This argument does not hold water, because all building sites and building operations, whether excavation, demolition or building, have to be inspected regularly by a factory inspector under regulations made by the Minister of Labour. It would be perfectly simple for the Corporation to find from that inspector, if from no one else, who were the contractors and who was responsible for the failure to prevent injury from the works.
I do not only say that these are dangerous principles to introduce into the law for the special benefit of the City


of London. I say also that there is a great danger, when this sort of provision appears in a Private Bill, that a precedent is set. There must be many other cities where congestion may be pleaded, as the Corporation pleads congestion for the City of London, and where this Clause will become a precedent for its introduction into other Private Bills. I say that to prosecute the owner in such cases will neither prevent nor cure the mischief.
What is the owner to do? Is he to go upon the site and direct the operations? What is the "due diligence" which he is required under these Clauses to observe? The owner cannot effectively interfere with the technical operations on a building site, whether they be excavations or building operations. To be fair to the promoters of the Bill, I do not think that they suggest that. As far as I understand it, they do not suggest that the owner will be forced by the Bill to take any greater precautions. All they want is a ready-made accused whom they can charge with an offence.
It may be said that the owner is perfectly capable of indemnifying himself, by insurance or by securing undertakings from his contractors, against the charge under these Clauses. But one cannot indemnify oneself or insure oneself against the commission of a crime. However much assurance he may have from his contractor, the owner may well be prosecuted and have the stigma of conviction against him, a conviction for a criminal offence carrying heavy penalties. I do not think that this is the way to prevent or cure the mischief described in the Corporation's statement.
I want to turn for one moment from the owner's criminal responsibility to that of the contractor under these Clauses. May I first look closely at the actual offences created by these two Clauses? Under Clause 8(2) the wording starts off with something which I think is merely declaratory, because it obviously has no sanction or penalty to enforce it. It says:
Any person who makes, or executes works for the making of. an excavation to which this Section applies shall take, in connection with the making of the excavation, or the execution of such works, such steps as may be necessary to prevent the withdrawal of support (whether vertical or lateral) for any

street in relation to which this Section applies to the excavation …
A person who fails to do that does not, as I read the Clause, commit any crime. The crime occurs only if the excavation causes withdrawal of support from the street. This is the latter part of the Clause:
… and if the making of any such excavation, or the execution of works for the making of any such excavation, causes the withdrawal of support as aforesaid for any such street so that, for the purpose of removing danger so caused, it is reasonably necessary to restrict or prohibit the use of the street to pedestrians or vehicles …
the person responsible for making the excavation shall be guilty of the offence.
As I read that Clause, I do not think that if the contractor or the owner showed that reasonable care had been adopted in the excavations it would be a defence. I read this as an absolute criminal liability in which, say, exceptional weather causing flooding, or unknown defects in sewers having washed away the earth and left cavities, and other occurrences which could not be reasonably foreseen, would not, under the wording of that Clause, be any defence. If I am right in that, this is a very objectionable piece of private legislation.
Clause 9 is even worse in its wording, in imposing liability without any defence for reasonable care or reasonable foresight. Under Clause 9(2), again after the preliminary declaratory sentence, the Bill says:
… and if in the course of the carrying out of such building operations there is any accident or occurrence which gives rise to the risk of serious bodily injury to a person in a street …
The words are,
which gives rise to the risk of serious bodily injury".
I wonder what occurrence in the course of building operations adjacent to a street does not give rise to the risk of injury to those people in the street. Tools or materials may be dropped from the scaffold; the very erection of the scaffold itself may give rise to risk to a pedestrian walking into the scaffold on the pavement; the movement of lorries over the pavement; the unloading of lorries from the street on to the building site; the unloading of machinery; cranes on the site—all these things must necessarily give rise to risk of bodily injury to a person in the street. If that is the case, then


the very carrying-out of these building operations is to be a crime, and the Clause would bring building operations to a standstill.
These are the sort of risks which are covered by third-party insurance by the ordinary contractors, and the public to that extent is protected. But the public is also protected, without any Clause in this Bill, by the Building Construction Regulations. It is true that the Construction Regulations are designed primarily for the safety of those working on the site and that they apply to
a contractor and an employer of workmen",
which is the description of the persons who may be charged under the Regulations. But in fact, the Regulations also afford protection to the public in the street as well as to the workmen on the site if they are properly enforced. I will come back to that point later.
I have here, for example, the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948, which cover, in some 30 or more paragraphs, scaffolding and means of access and go into very great detail about the construction of scaffolding, lifting appliances, chains, ropes and lifting gear, special provision as to hoists, the secureness of loads, excavation, demolition, health and welfare on the site. They are so extensive that they protect the public if these works are being carried out adjacent to the street.

Mr. Albert Evans: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the statement put forward by the Petitioners? In the last paragraph the Petitioners say,
It is conceded that the law relating to the control. inspection and authorisation of works adjacent to the highway needs reconsideration and codification and that it is not at present satisfactorily and effectively observed and enforced.

Mr. Page: If the hon. Member has patience to bear with me a little longer, although I have been talking for a long time, I hope to come to that very important point. But I first wanted to point out that there were Regulations covering building operations, excavations and demolitions, under which the Minister of Labour's inspectors can and do inspect the site and the work being carried out there.
To complete that side of the story, I will mention the Construction (General

Provisions) Regulations, 1961, which cover such things as supervision of safe conduct of work, safety of working places and means of access, excavations, shafts and tunnels, and demolitions, and the Construction (Lifting Operations) Regulations, 1961, which, again, deal with cranes and lifting appliances, chains, ropes, lifting gear, and hoists. Not only are there those provisions, but the common law duty exists on every contractor to take all reasonable precautions to ensure that no one and no other property is harmed as a result of his operations.
There are, too, the provisions of Part II of the Public Health Act, 1961, which deal with building Regulations, particularly with building structures as they may be a danger to people in the street. I refer specifically to Sections 24, 25, 26 and 29 and to the provisions in regard to demolition under which anyone undertaking demolition work must inform the local authority and the local authority can require certain precautions to be taken.
Again, for example, under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, the London County Council has power to make bye-laws relating to demolitions. Yet further provision is made in Sections 144 to 150 of the Highways Act, 1959, for the protection of persons in the street from building operations; and that Act will apply to London on 1st April, 1965, although in the meantime there are similar provisions under the old Acts—the Metropolitan Management Act, 1855, and the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1890.
It will be seen, therefore, that there is plenty of law for the safety of the public. The trouble is that its administration is scattered among so many different authorities. The Ministry of Labour deals with the Factory Regulations, which I quoted. The Ministry of Public Building and Works deals with the Building Regulations, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government deals with the public health provisions, the Minister of Transport deals with the highways legislation and the local authorities with their several byelaws.
I assure the House that I fully appreciate that a problem is raised in the Bill, but it is a general problem for public legislation and the way in which the Bill deals with the problem will not solve it.


There have lately been occasions of great inconvenience to the public caused by subsidence of the road due to excavations near the road. There have been tragic occurrences of the collapse of building equipment, particularly of cranes, into the road. I should like to know whether the Government intend to produce any general legislation to deal with this matter.
The Association of Municipal Corporations raised the point in connection with the draft Building Regulations and suggested that they should deal with the safety of the public as well as the safety of those working on the site. Has anything been done in any Government Department about that proposal? The Ministry of Housing and Local Government made inquiries from the local authorities after the collapse of a building in Victoria Street about 12 months or more ago. Has anything been done as a result of the representations of local authorities to put the law in order?
If the Bill were aimed at improving the inspection of sites, enforcing the existing law and drawing together in the hands of perhaps one set of inspectors the innumerable statutory provisions for the safety of the public, I would have no objection. But in the Bill the City Corporation seems to wish to abrogate its duties for inspecting sites and seeing that work is done safely for the public, and putting in the place of that duty a nice easy process whereby the Corporation can say, "If anything happens, if the road collapses, if there is a risk of danger from the operations you are carrying out, we will prosecute the owner because he is the easiest person to grab."
This will not protect the public. This should not be put into private legislation. If there is a problem it should be dealt with by way of public legislation and the Government should take the initiative to bring that legislation forward. I hope that the House will approve this Motion for an Instruction.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I respectfully urge the House not to allow the hands of the Committee to be fettered in the way advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). To eliminate Clauses 8 to 11 would be to murder Part II of the Bill,

which is not designed, if I may quote words used by my hon. Friend— inadvertently, I am sure—for the benefit of the City of London, but designed to enable the City of London to fulfill its duty of protecting the citizens in and about their business.
I concede at once that there are matters in this Measure that require careful discussion and investigation. I concede that it imposes drastic duties and liabilities upon the owner, as defined, but those are matters that can be investigated in Committee in the way in which Select Committees always investigate such matters. They can be provided for by way of Amendment. Indeed, the promoters of the Bill have themselves already proposed that in Committee an Amendment should be made to insert a provision in Clause 9 to exclude liability for a fine where it can be shown that all practicable steps have been taken to avoid accident. I see no reason why there should not be a similar Amendment to Clause 8.
The provisions in Clause 8 to 11 to which my hon. Friend takes exception are designed to meet the very real difficulty and the very real danger to the public that is peculiar to the City of London, and arise from the extreme value of land there and the extremely overcrowded condition of the buildings. It needs no words of mine to indicate that reconstruction, demolition and rebuilding are proceeding at a quite startling rate in the City at the moment. Many hon. Members must have had my own experience of going to a street that one has not visited for some years, looking for a familiar landmark and finding that the whole landscape has changed.
That process has been going on for some time. It is greatly to the interests of developers in the City of London to speed up their redevelopment. Speed is the order of the day, and I fear that sometimes this speed may be detrimental to the public and to the safety of the public. For instance, in making excavations it is must easier to dig quickly and not to take trouble to shore up the sides.
It is very easy to build rapidly and not take necessary and right protective action. When damage inures to the public as a result of such a procedure, it is sometimes extremely difficult to run the real culprit to earth. Nowadays, in the development of any big public site, and


particularly valuable sites in the City, there is perhaps behind it all a great City company, which has leased the land to a developer, who has received the rack rent in due course, who has employed contractors, who employed sub-contractors, who have architects and all sorts of other persons intervening providing new services and a variety of installations in the building.
This is why it is vitally necessary that, if these Clauses are to go forward at all, the City authorities should be able to pinpoint somebody and say, "You are the person responsible. We look to you. Unless you tell us and can show whom of the numerous underlings you employ is responsible, you are the person to whom we must look for a remedy and you must pay the penalty when damage enures to the public". It is for this reason that the Clauses attach liability to the owner.
That is not new in our legislation. Similar provisions prevail in the Factories Acts, which are designed for the protection of workers in factories and factory buildings. Clause 10, which was criticised by my hon. Friend, is modelled upon Section 161 of the Factories Act, 1961, which enables those pursuing a factory owner for some breach of the provisions of the Act to say to him, "You will be responsible, but you may bring in whoever you say is actually responsible for what has happened". I am paraphrasing complicated legal language, but I do so in layman's terms.
There is nothing new in the principle which is brought to bear in Clauses 8 to 10. The damage and injury—the evil—which these provisions are designed to meet are very real, because in the last few years there have been numerous examples in the City of London, in the peculiarly overcrowed conditions of the City, where injury and grave inconvenience have been caused to the public by excavations not properly protected—that is what Clause 8 is designed to deal with—and by buildings going up too quickly, without proper precautions being taken.
When modern buildings replace old buildings in the City, nowadays the excavations normally go down much further than hitherto. The greater height calls for deeper foundations. In the foundations it may be necessary—it is certainly desirable—to provide car parking space, so that sometimes floor

after floor of garage space is provided. This is something wholly new in city development in this country. I say "new" within the context of the last half century.
Similarly, buildings are going up much higher. In the old days under their local authority powers the City, like other local authorities, could say, "Put up a hoarding to protect the public". A hoarding is no longer a protection when a building towers perhaps 50 storeys above any hoarding which could be erected. In the old days it was possible to erect what I believe were called fans. This is the type of projecting protection which is seen around buildings so that water does not drip on the heads of passers by. Fans are useless when something drops from 25 storeys up and is carried away beyond the fan and perhaps way beyond the street in which the fan is put up for protection.
The result is that there have been numerous incidents in the last few years, first, with regard to excavations, of streets being undermined and falling in and of such streets having had to be closed to traffic as a result, and, secondly, grave risk of injury to the public by demolitions carried out too quickly and by cranes falling.
A short time ago there was an instance of a crane falling and cleaving through the top of a bus. Fortunately, the people inside the bus had a lucky escape, which, unfortunately, cannot be said of another incident, which the House will remember, on the Hendon by-pass, not long ago, just outside the range of the city and, therefore, of my speech.
If I may give the House one or two examples of what has happened in recent years, in November, 1959, Old Bailey had to be closed. I am not referring to the courts. None of my learned friends was out of work as a result of this, I understand. When it was opened it was opened only to single-line traffic because an excavation adjacent to it had been ineffectively protected. In October, 1961, in Carter Lane, there were site excavations adjoining a street; the street subsided and had to be closed for a considerable time. In 1963, in Moor Lane, the road had to be closed for approximately four days owing to unsupported site excavations. In the Barbican, the classified road had to be closed for five


days in December last owing to badly supported site excavations which let down a water main under the street. The water main burst and washed away the road foundations.
These are circumstances which the ordinary law of tort, or the ordinary right of the local authority to get compensation for the nuisance caused, is wholly inapt to meet. The grave inconvenience which is caused to the public by having streets closed for days at a time, if not weeks, simply cannot be compensated by the sort of compensation which the local authority can insist upon for the nuisance of putting a street right.

Mr. Graham Page: Can my hon. and learned Friend tell the House, in face of any of those examples, whether the owners refused to supply information about the contractors and who was really responsible for the damage?

Mr. Grieve: It would be quite irrelevant to the citing of these examples for me to tell my hon. Friend whether that is so or not.

Mr. Page: It is wholly relevant.

Mr. Grieve: No, it is quite irrelevant to the examples which I am citing. At this stage, and at the time of these happenings, the local authority had no power to go to the people responsible such as is sought in the Bill under discussion.
Turning to the sort of dangers and evils which Clause 9 is designed to redress, they fall under three main headings: first—I have already alluded to this—in the construction of new buildings, and especially tall ones, from which articles may be carried a long way from the fans which have hitherto been a more or less adequate protection on the ordinary sort of building in the city. Then there are those resulting from the demolition—

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Grieve: If my hon. Friend will give me a moment, I will finish what I am saying and then I will give way.
Then there are those resulting from the demolition of existing buildings, especially where there is a penalty clause in

the contract with the contractors so that they are hurrying for all they are worth to finish quickly. Finally, there is the damage caused by the collapse of cranes, scaffolding, and so forth.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend could tell the House what sort of legislation protects people in the United States of America where, I understand, high buildings have been erected for a number of years?

Mr. Grieve: I have confined my researches in this matter, which have been extremely short, to this country. I have not ventured to the United States. I cannot help my hon. Friend.
I should like to give examples of the three categories which I have cited. In Farringdon Street, in November, 1963, scaffolding which was being dismantled collapsed into the street. Half the street and one footway had to be closed and single-line traffic had to be operated. I am sure that hon. Members know the degree of traffic in Farringdon Street in an ordinary day.
In September, 1964, a new block was in course of construction opposite Cannon Street Station. Each floor of the block was being lifted by what I understand is called the lift-slab method from the ground in its entirety on to its own level in the course of the erection of the building. It was observed that two columns had suffered serious deflection after one of the slabs had been hoisted to the top of the building. It was leaning towards the street and if it had fallen it would have fallen into the street and taken a tower crane with it. It was immediately over the main entrance of Cannon Street Station. The station had to be closed during the rush hour and passengers had to be diverted to other entrances.
In Addle Street part of the scaffolding of a building collapsed in October, 1964, on a section of the building which bridged the street. The adjoining scaffolding on either side came to rest overhanging the street which had to be closed. In the course of demolition at the Old Bailey in September, 1959, as a result of the use of a ball and chain, the front elevation of a building collapsed into the street which had to


be closed for seven days. At Great St. Helens, in December, 1963, buildings which were being cleared in connection with an area development fell into a street which had to be closed for a week. I am told that quite recently City officials came upon a case where a four-storey wall standing alone next to a street was being demolished by the ball and chain method, clearly to the greatest possible danger of any people who were passing by. I am not saying that those on the spot were not trying to take such precautions as they could but the street had to be closed.
In Shoe Lane, in 1960, during the construction of a new building a tower crane collapsed across an adjoining building. Fortunately, no injury was caused. In Great Swan Alley, in August, 1961, in the course of demolition, the building crane jib hit a girder resulting in a 30-ft. high wall collapsing into the street and causing considerable damage to vehicles parked there. Fortunately, there were no passers-by at the time. In Leadenhall Street, in April, 1964, in the course of demolishing a building, the jib of a crane collapsed, falling on a bus. This is the incident to which I referred earlier. It sliced completely through the top compartment of the bus and came to rest two feet above the driver's head.
The Bill is designed to deal with these kind of incidents of which the examples I have given could be multiplied. It simply is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby to say that if this sort of protection has to be given in the City by the creation of a special criminal offence it will repeatedly be followed throughout the rest of the country. The conditions prevailing in the City can hardly be met by example anywhere else, save perhaps in the most crowded parts of Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow and not even then because nowhere else could the redeveloping of land lead to the speed and sometimes to the sort of recklessness which has resulted in the incidents to which I have referred in the City of London.
I quite agree that the Clauses to which my hon. Friend refers require most careful examination. Far be it from me, having practised in the law, to suggest that any criminal offence should be

created without the most careful scrutiny. But it is precisely for such careful scrutiny that our Committee procedure is designed. The Bill will be carefully scrutinised in Committee, and many of the objections raised by my hon. Friend will be met by Amendments which the promoters themselves will propose.
To remove these four Clauses from the Bill now would destroy the principal part of it, the rest of the Bill being confined to financial matters, street trading, and so on. In my submission to the House, the Committee should not be fettered in the way proposed by my hon. Friend, and I trust that he will seek leave to withdraw his Motion.

9.26 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) has covered the ground very fully. I wish to say just a few words in an effort to assist the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), whose opinions I value very highly as a rule but who, on this occasion, I feel, has rather slipped from the path and is urging a course which, in his heart of hearts, he must know is not one which can be adopted.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a series of Acts and regulations dealing with the very point with which these Clauses are intended to deal. What he overlooked is the fact that, in spite of all these regulations and Acts, it still remains true that many incidents of a previous nature including those mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull, have taken place. I suggest that they have taken place because the laws and regulations prevailing hitherto have not been effective.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not deny that these things occur. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will assist the House by explaining how an owner, if he is made criminally liable, will go about inspecting scaffolding, how he can trouble himself about the lift-slab method or see whether the ball and chain is being used correctly. How can an owner do this sort of thing?

Sir B. Janner: If the owner were made criminally liable, I am sure that he would find ways and means of doing it


either by himself or by arranging that someone competent should do it for him. The whole intention of these provisions is to make an owner sufficiently cautious and careful about operations of this kind so that he will not find himself in difficulty. I understand that to the purpose for which the City of London has introduced these provisions.
We cannot deal with this matter in a vacuum. A most serious situation exists now. Buildings are going up at great speed. Land owners, being human and anxious to make as much profit as they can—some would not blame them for that— are not always as anxious as they might be about the speed at which buildings are erected on valuable sites in the centre of London. Every hour every day makes a difference to them. It is important that the City of London should ensure that the citizens are protected so far as the law can protect them.
The hon. Member may regard the falling of a crane on somebody as an unavoidable incident, but the City of London does not, and, in my view, it is to be encouraged in trying to cope with such a situation so that the passer-by may be properly protected if this is at all possible. Cranes and concrete slabs often fall on people owing to negligence on somebody's part.
The hon. Member knows as well as I do that his Motion is intended as an obstruction. It is not an attempt to remedy the situation. It is an attempt to obstruct the passing of these Clauses in a Bill which has been drafted not with a sinister intent but to provide protection and prevent the obstruction of facilities which are so important in the City of London. If a busy centre in London is closed for two or three days, it means a terrible amount of inconvenience as well as a terrible loss.
It is the duty of those governing the City of London to ensure that protection is provided by way of legislation. They may have erred in respect of some of the provisions in these Clauses. It may be that the hon. Member for Crosby is cautious—we all have to be—about the introduction of penalties. But in Committee some further protection may be given to owners. The hon. Member is sensible and has considerable legal

experience and knowledge, and he must realise that something has to be done to cure the present state of affairs.
The hon. Member says that a general Act should be passed for this purpose. But the general Acts that we have already had have not done the job. Cranes continue to fall owing to some negligence and many other difficulties are encountered. Those Acts have not remedied these things. Surely we should let the City have an opportunity in Committee to explain why it considers that their proposals will remedy the situation.
Let us not sidestep the fact that vested interests are involved here. Of course, I do not claim that vested interests are always wrong, for many of them are not. But those vested interests which are involved in this matter may not take the same point of view as those who wish to prevent vested interests from not being as cautious as they should be—I am using very careful language here—because their lack of caution may result in very serious injury and, in many cases, death.
I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion in the knowledge that everything he has said tonight will not only be very carefully considered in Committee but that, even after that stage, he will still have an opportunity to deal with the position if he considers that the Committee has not acted correctly. On the other hand, of course, after that Committee, which is impartial, has reached certain conclusions, he may believe that things are not as bad as far as the legal precautions were concerned and that this is not such an attack on the rights or freedoms of the individual as he has feared.
I am not only concerned with the fact that serious injuries have been caused; some of them miraculous escapes from death, when a crane has fallen or similar incidents have occurred. I am also deeply concerned that this may be a progressive danger and that we must do something about it because buildings are going up higher and higher, with graver dangers. More careful handling must be considered by owners, contractors, sub-tractors and everyone else concerned. Not only is their liberty at stake but the liberty of the individual entitled to protection of life and limb.
This will go before a Committee which will have the right to investigate in the manner the hon. Gentleman would desire. It will be able to examine all the essential evidence that he, with his trained legal mind, would want investigated. This will be far better than a casual talk across the Floor of the House. All his points will be considered in the fullness of a legal investigation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can think of no better way of going into the position. In these circumstances, I hope he will withdraw from his attitude and allow the Bill to go on to its Committee stage.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve. I have no rights in any property in the City of London, but, as a user of the City, I am a supporter of the Bill. I could not help feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) went a little far in saying that the Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations were some protection 'to the public. I understand that those regulations were brought in under the Factories Acts and that, although they are a protection to the work people employed on the buildings, they are not a protection to the public, and it is the public whom the Bill seeks to assist.
The City of London is an extremely complicated place, with networks of narrow streets, railways and undergrounds. Building operations in the City are probably more dangerous than they are anywhere else in the land. Anything we can do to see that the public going about its lawful business, as I have to do from time to time in the City, is protected against the accidents which can occur on very high buildings should have our respectful attention, and I hope that the Bill will obtain a Second Reading.

Mr. Graham Page: Can my hon. Friend assist the House by saying in what way the public will be protected by making the owner criminally liable for errors in technical building operations, which is what these Clauses seek to do?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: By pinpointing the responsibility, and putting it on the owner, for seeing that these things are put right.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: It is clear that the Corporation of the City of London has pointed to a major problem, and it is evident from the speeches we have heard and from our own knowledge that there is an increasing danger from modern building methods in urban areas. These are problems which require examination, and for the first time the matter has come before the House.
While I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that this is not the most suitable way in which to deal with the problem, we could have a catastrophe in the City any day, and the Bill is at least a beginning. I share many of the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Crosby about increasing the number of possible crimes, but the problem put forward by the City of London must be carefully examined. The Select Committee will be able to consider all the evidence in detail and far more thoroughly than is possible in the House.
If, after the Bill has gone through Committee, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are not satisfied with the outcome, they will have another opportunity to raise the matter.

9.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I intervene briefly to explain the Government's attitude to the Bill and to the objections made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I can be brief because the hon. Members who have intervened have considerably lightened my task in expounding some of the points. However, naturally, the House would expect a representative of the Ministry of Transport to intervene because my right hon. Friend and I have heavy responsibilities for maintaining the safety and convenience of public use of the highway. We are therefore very concerned with some of the provisions and proposals put forward.
It is surprising, on the face of it, that the hon. Member for Crosby should put forward objections tonight in the form of an Instruction to omit certain Clauses from the Bill, because he is so closely associated in people's minds with road safety proposals and is particularly concerned for pedestrians. The provisions


in the Bill aim to give additional protection to pedestrians in the City of London.

Mr. Graham Page: I regret if I did not make my argument clear, but this was why I said I want a general law on the subject and that the administration of the present law was ineffective. I want the public to be protected in a proper way and not piecemeal by private legislation.

Mr. Swingler: That was one of the things said by the hon. Gentleman, but I took the general tenor of his speech to mean that these provisions would be ineffective and this was not the right way to tackle the matter.
The question which arises is whether in the City of London there is a special problem in this regard, and, if there is, whether it calls for new measures to tackle it. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) showed that there is a particular and, maybe, increasing danger in the City of London because of the tallness of the buildings under construction and that this calls for special measures. I can understand many of the reasons why the hon. Member for Crosby disagrees with the form of these provisions, and I think that he may well have demonstrated that they are not perfectly drafted. But we believe and recommend to the House that the Bill should be allowed to go through so that it can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) said, be thoroughly examined in Committee and the case for it well weighed up.
I remind the House that when we give a Second Reading to a Private Bill it does not necessarily mean that we approve all the principles contained in it, but we say that the customary opportunity should be given to consider the expediency of the measures. We in the Ministry of Transport think that the Clauses in the Bill are worthy of examination in Committee.
The value of Clause 8 must, I think, be apparent to anybody who walks round the City of London and observes the immensely deep excavations going on at sites where the foundations are to be laid for very tall buildings. This is a special feature—and it may be part of

the answer to the hon. Member for Crosby—of the City of London which calls, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, for special measures. It is obvious that unless proper support is provided when these excavations are proceeding there is the danger of undermining adjoining streets. Roads are thereby made dangerous and may have to be closed to traffic, as has happened. The traffic then has to be diverted to other streets with all the consequences of increased congestion, lengthened journeys and general inconvenience to the public.
Under the present law, it is often true that the developer who causes a considerable and substantial nuisance of this kind gets off very lightly. It is true that the highway authority can claim damages for the cost of repairing the highway, but the public is in no way compensated for the loss and inconvenience that result from the closure of a road necessitated by excavation on adjoining land.
Clause 8 of the Bill would control excavations within 30 ft. of a public highway to preserve support for that highway. If the support was inadequate according to the standards of the Corporation, those responsible would be guilty of an offence and liable to a financial penalty.
Clause 9 deals with a different sort of nuisance which may be caused by activities on building sites. This Clause requires persons carrying out building and demolition operations near the street to secure that no danger is caused to passers-by. Under its existing powers, the Corporation may require builders to put up hoardings, but new building techniques have introduced new dangers, some of which have been mentioned by hon. Members in this debate. There is a new exposure to risk for pedestrians in the streets from objects which fall from these very tall buildings or past these hoardings on to narrow footways.
I believe that the promoters of the Bill have recognised the need for more up-to-date control over building operations in the interests of public safety in the streets and that the Bill is a valid attempt to try to deal with this problem. We, therefore, are in considerable sympathy with the Bill. This does not necessarily mean that the Clauses as drafted are not open to criticism and objection and should not be scrutinised carefully. They may well require


modification. They do, however, seek to protect the safety and convenience of the public in an area of London where these are particularly liable to be adversely affected by building operations. The public has a right to safe passage on the highway and the Corporation, as highway authority, has both the right and the duty to assert that public right.
If, therefore, in the special circumstances in the City of London the Corporation feels that the general law does not at present give the public adequate protection, it is proper that it should come to this House and seek new powers to deal with the problem. The Clauses of the Bill may have their defects, but I believe, and I hope that the House will agree, that we should give the promoters an opportunity in Committee to see whether these defects can be put right.

9.53 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I do not want to add much to the debate, but we should realise that the promoters are seeking in the Bill to put upon the owner of land a responsibility concerning which he has no knowledge to enable him to carry such responsibilities. A number of cases have been cited of happenings which are serious and which obviously require examination and attention so that they should not be repeated. I have not, however, heard any hon. Member tonight say anything which indicates that placing the responsibility upon the owner of the property would have any effective result.
Obviously, the people who have the responsibility, and who have the knowledge to carry out that responsibility, are the contractors. I hope that we will not be so persuaded by a long list of cases, of which we do not know the circumstances, to believe that it is a good thing to end that string of cases by making the owner responsible prima facie in these matters. If the Bill goes to Committee, I hope sincerely that that will be carefully reconsidered.

Question put and negatived.

WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question poposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
Whatever one may have said in the past about Ministerial salaries and pensions I think that we would all agree that today the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has earned his corn. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman took part in the last debate, but he took part most courteously in two debates on Private Bills.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was conspicuous in the concessions which he gave on those occasions. I believe that he is to answer the Adjournment debate tonight of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who has another transport problem for him, so that the hon. Gentleman will have had three debates and an Adjournment debate to answer. I am grateful that the Minister of Transport is present. His hon. Friend must have had a hard weekend doing his "prep" for these various debates.
I am less grateful to the promoters of the Bill. In many respects I think that their methods may be complained about. I understand that the proceedings of the Standing Orders Committee are confidential, but I also understand that there was considerable doubt whether the Bill was in order when first presented even to that Committee. There was a lack of consultation with local authorities which had a great interest in this matter.
I shall not again weary the House with a recital of the sorrows of Weston-super-Mare. Hon. Members have twice heard this subject discussed by me at great length in the Select Committee. A number of members of the Committee, including the Chairman, are present this evening. A number of my hon. Friends, and an hon. Member on the Government back benches, did a great deal to alleviate


the situation for Weston-super-Mare and this made up for the lack of consultation.
Then we had the final blow in the last debate on the subject—this is why I am glad we have been able to air the matter on a number of occasions—of which the promoters obviously had been given little notice, when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), with no notice to me, fired off a volley literally behind my back—he was sitting behind me.
I complained about this to the promoters and I asked the Town Clerk of Weston-super-Mare whether the allegation made by my hon. Friend, that Weston-super-Mare declined to answer the offer for the defraying of the total cost, was an inaccurate statement. I refer now to a letter written by the promoters of the Bill on 30th January to the Town Clerk of Weston-super-Mare in which it is stated:
I agree that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman"—
they mentioned the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—
to which you refer were inaccurate".
It seems to me that this is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way for promoters to conduct proceedings on a Private Bill.
I have been kind to the Parliamentary Secretary, but he will not expect me to be too gentle with him, or he may take it that I am softening him up for when the Government majority has been reduced to two or one. Here we have a situation—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) will be able to develop the point—where we have Government by rumour. We have the Rochdale Committee, as I keep calling it, the National Ports Council, which has reported to the Minister of Transport and whose Report was made in confidence.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), when Minister of Transport, was in the habit himself of having secret negotiations and secret reports in these cases. Many public authorities have objected, and this includes Cardiff. I do not know where the Chancellor of the Exchequer

is tonight, but I think that he is abroad explaining—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Tom Fraser.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Webster: I am grateful that I was not out of order in referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am well aware that he has a great interest as a Member for Cardiff.
The Home Secretary, when he is not in Northampton, has an interest in the Port of Newport and we have many other ports which are very much involved on the north side of the Severn Estuary. This Report has been presented in secret. What I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is as he is here is that there have been a great many rumours as to what the findings of these Reports have been. These rumours have been heard in the Lobbies of this House and, I think, have been reported in certain newspapers, though I will not name them as I am not sufficiently sure of my facts on this point. The rumours have been to the effect that two specific ports have been selected. It seems to me rather in line with these rumours that great pressure has been put on to rush the Bill through this House.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, "Mr. 3 per cent.", the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, has been consulted about a regional plan on this subject. I wonder whether the Minister of Land and Natural Resources has been consulted on this subject.

Mr. Arthur Probert: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to develop this subject on Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I was beginning to think that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) was getting somewhat away from the Bill. He must keep to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Webster: Would it, then, be in order to come to the point made by the


hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who last time accused me of standing in the way of modernisation and, since he has moved over into the valleys, was able to develop his point with natural Welsh hwyl?
It was said that we were resisting modernisation by the Bill. I would say, that one part of the Bill is very far from modernisation. It seems to have slipped in and I take the very gravest exception to it. My understanding of the Second Reading of the Bill was that any oil or natural gas imported through this jetty would be for the purposes of the steel works and for the steel works alone.
I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister—whoever is replying—that Clause 25 restricts the use of the wharf works: It says:
The company shall not use the wharf works, nor permit the wharf works to be used, otherwise than for the importation of bulk cargoes of—

(a) raw materials for steelworks in Wales or Monmouthshire; and
(b) crude oil or natural gas."

This seems to be a complete move away from the original situation as we understood it on the Second Reading. We understood then that it was a matter of raw materials for steel works in Wales and Monmouthshire; that it was limited to Wales and Monmouthshire regarding crude oil and natural gas. As the Bill now stands as amended by the Committee—how it got there I would not know—there is no limitation on the amount of oil or natural gas which can be imported. So we have a situation which is entirely different from the situation which the House has previously understood. This is a matter of the very deepest principle, and not only to people in the South or in Somerset or in Bristol. I hope that there are hon. Members for Bristol here who will take notice of this. I take the gravest exception to the fact that this was slipped into the Bill.
We have very narrow waters to contend with. I apologise for the Admiralty charts which I have here; I do not know whether I can lay them on the Table, and indeed I am not sure that the Table is big enough for them. We have a jetty which would run approximately four-and-a half miles from Llanwern across into the Bristol Deep, where they get water at nine and ten fathoms—and within half-a-mile of my hon. Friend's constituency at

the National School and Blacknor Point, just outside Portishead. The decision to make this an entry for the steel works was one which the House took in its wisdom, passing the matter on to a Select Committee. But now we have the import of oil and natural gas not only for the steelworks—and we must concede the right to import it to the steelworks—but as a right under the Bill for a major terminal within half-a-mile of the Somerset coastline.
All this is substantiated by Dr. Beeching's latest reshaping plan. On map No. 6 and on page 59 hon. Members will see that the railway oil traffic, between the main centres in 1964, from the Cardiff-Newport area was a flow of half-a-million tons per year and from Bristol into the Cardiff-Newport area was a flow of 250,000 tons a year. On page 15 there is a forward projection of railway oil traffic. This is without any pipelines which may be added. It shows no flow at all from Bristol into the South Wales ports. I stress that I am not talking about Milford Haven, which does not enter into either of these maps. It deals with the South Wales ports, with Cardiff and Newport. There may be an extension to Llandarcy. If so, I should be very surprised if it were only that, and I am deeply suspicious, for not only have we a major terminal right on our doorstep in North Somerset but we have a major terminal envisaged which will make a big difference to the whole of the port structure of this country.
I know that Bristol wants this, because as long as the end of the jetty is in the Bristol Deep, Bristol is getting the port dues. I am all for somebody who gets something for nothing. If anybody gave me money for nothing I should be delighted.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member on Third Reading to discuss the circumstances in which he is in favour of getting money for nothing?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly not. He can discuss only what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Webster: In that point of order the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is getting money for nothing.
I come to the narrowness of the entry channel. This is a matter which has been introduced into the Bill since it was last discussed.

Mr. Michael Foot: No.

Mr. Webster: It is still a matter of the very deepest principle.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Would the hon. Member explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) made exactly the same speech on 22nd December? I am following the hon. Member's speech as reported in HANSARD, and it contains exactly the same points—and it was made on 22nd December.

Mr. Webster: I was prevented from developing these points because it was not at that time appreciated that there was unlimited right of entry. The point was not made then that there was an unlimited right to bring in oil and natural gas through the jetty. I have people here who have studied the Bill at great length and who would agree that new circumstances have arisen. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that this is a matter of deep principle, and I hope that hon. Members who represent Bristol will bear it in mind.
Bristol has asked why the National Ports Council has not been to see its representatives. We have a Report presented in secret to the Ministry about the North Wales iron ore ports. We now see that the Bill enables the right to import unlimited supplies of oil and natural gas. It is significant that the Bill has been brought to the House for the third time, but prior to the first visit by the Ports Council to Bristol. This causes me considerable anxiety and I urge hon. Members to realise that I am not raising a parochial point because I do not have the honour to represent Bristol.
Bristol is getting the revenue from the Bristol Deeps. On the other hand, we must project our thoughts into the future and realise that the iron ore carriers will soon be of 80,000 tons. We are getting oil and natural gas carriers coming in and that, in some cases, can mean up to 150,000 tons. I understand that Esso has made a firm order for 250,000 tons. This

creates a completely new situation. If we are to have a major oil terminal right outside the Bristol entry into Avonmouth and Portbury I would have thought that that would restrict the existing trade into Avonmouth, but I will not go on to repeat how this would affect other constituencies because I have already dealt with that matter.

Mr. Swingler: Ad nauseam.

Mr. Webster: It seems that we have struck the Minister on edge. Perhaps he will now take back the Bill for further consideration and Amendment because this is a point of considerable principle.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would the hon. Member agree that everything he has said about the Port of Bristol is largely conjecture?

Mr. Webster: I have given my opinions. It is my duty to do that.
This is a matter on which I am absolutely a layman and, while I hope that I will have the support of members of the Select Committee on this point, I must admit that I am a layman in this issue and I must also admit that a great deal of it is conjecture. At the same time, however, a great deal of anxiety has caused me to raise the matter because I do not think it is something which should be kept in secret. The House should be given further information, and permission to go ahead should be held back until the Portbury project has been fully considered.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: It should be made clear at the outset that the Bill is exactly the same as the one which was discussed on Report. If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) did not notice at that time what was in the Bill that is his fault and not the fault of the Bill.
It appears to me that it is carrying enthusiasm to excess to bring the Bill again before the House, because on two previous occasions the overwhelming majority of hon. Members agreed that the Measure should go forward. It has not been a case of one side of the House against the other. Indeed, on Report it was supported from the Opposition Front Bench by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft).
I suppose that I should declare my interest in the matter, since I was Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill. My interest is that I am anxious that the 60-odd hours which my Committee spent on the Measure should not be wasted. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that certain rumours had been circulating in the House about a report from the National Ports Council which might affect the Bill. I thought I heard most things that take place in this House, but that particular rumour must have escaped me.
In any case, I think that both the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) know that if they succeeded in defeating this Bill they might be in a worse position than they would be letting it go through. I do not know what the National Ports Council will report, or, if it has already reported to the Minister, I do not know what it has reported, but if the Council reports that it thinks that this scheme should go ahead it is very important to both hon. Members that the Bill should go forward, in order that the safeguards put into it by the Committee should be there for their benefit. If the Bill were to be defeated, those safeguards would go.
I sincerely hope that these enthusiastic Members for Weston-super-Mare and Somerset, North—having made their point on so many different occasions, and the House having on so many different occasions overwhelmingly decided that the Bill should go forward—will not, on this occasion, press their objection to a Division; and that the House will agree to give the Bill its Third Reading.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I speak in some difficulty here as a member of the Committee, and I should like at the very beginning to pay my own tribute to the chairmanship of that Committee. Throughout a very long series of sittings it was patient and forbearing, and set for me, as a new Member, an example of how it should be done. I have no doubt that the Committee's decision was the right one and that it is in the national interest that the jetty should be constructed, but the Committee imposed some restrictions on the jetty and, with utter sincerity, I ask the

Minister to listen while I state what I understood those conditions to be.
First of all, we put in some matter which saves Weston—on that there is no dispute. Secondly, we put in matter concerning the use of the channel by small boats, and asked that means should be found whereby boats could get under the jetty at various states of the tide. Thirdly, and I think that this is the important issue which has arisen, we imposed some restrictions on the use to which the jetty could be put.
As I read the Bill as reported, it seems to me that what Clause 25 appears to confer, or would be conferring if this enabling Bill were accepted at a future stage, goes further than I, as a member of the Committee, intended. It reads:
The Company shall not use the wharf works, nor permit the wharf works to be used, otherwise than for the importation of bulk cargoes of—
 (a) raw materials for steel works in Wales or Monmouthshire …
I have no dispute with that whatsoever—
and
(b) crude oil or natural gas.
As I read (b), it confers on the promoters of the Bill an almost indefinite right to import as much crude oil or natural gas as they may wish, for any purpose they like, and not confined to making steel. As I read it, they could build a complete new oil port—a petrochemical industry—but that was not in my mind, as a member of the Committee, when we reported the Bill.

Mr. Blackburn: It ought to go on the record that I, as Chairman, think that the Bill is correct in that matter.

Mr. Griffiths: I bow to the Chairman of the Committee.
I should like to go beyond that and explain how it is, as I see it, that the confusion has arisen. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will bear with me, because it is a fairly technical matter. We must get to the bottom of it. When summing up the Committee's conditions to learned counsel, the Chairman made these remarks which I quote from Day 14 of the proceedings, page 13—Tuesday, 28th July. He first dealt with Weston. There is no disagreement about that. Then the Chairman went on to


say this about the restriction of the use of the jetty:
The Committee have considered the proposed Clause, which was agreed with Newport, restricting the use of the jetty and are prepared to insert the Clause in the form presented to them.
That is the restriction on the use of the jetty. We must determine—this is the heart of the matter—what restriction we meant when we said "The Clause which was agreed with Newport".
Unfortunately, there are two Newports in this case. I must confess that until I went upstairs I had not realised that there were two Newports. I will quote the restriction sought by the Borough of Newport. Paragraph 12 of the Petition presented by the Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of Newport asked the Committee to restrict the use of the jetty in this fashion, that it should be a
condition that those works should not be used for the import or export of general merchandise or for the export of steel for which adequate facilities have been provided".
There is, however, the Newport Docks. This is the British Transport Commission, which also put in a Petition and throughout their Petition referred to themselves as "your Petitioners Newport Docks". The Newport Docks restriction was a much more extensive one than the Borough of Newport restriction. I am sorry that this is technical, but it is a technical matter which we are dealing with. In the case of the Newport Docks the restriction appears in paragraph 11, namely,
that the use of the proposed works should be limited to the importation of iron ore and oil for use at the Spencer works and the Ebbw Vale Works and that it is not their intention that the said works should be used for imports of general merchandise".
I contend that this is where the problem lies. In the case of the Borough of Newport the restriction is only that the jetty must not be used for general merchandise. In the case of Newport Docks the restriction is that it should be used

only for the import of ore and oil for use at the Spencer Works and the Ebbw Vale Works. This is precisely what I understood the Committee to mean when it restricted the use of the jetty.

Mr. Blackburn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is merely quoting from the original petitions submitted by the Newport Docks and Newport County. Has he in front of him a copy of the suggested Amendments which were submitted to us by Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset and Newport?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I have had the opportunity of going through those. I think that there is very strong internal evidence in the last day of the proceedings, where the Chairman of the Committee was advising learned counsel of our decisions. I think that I can prove conclusively from the evidence contained therein that what we had in mind throughout was the restriction sought by Newport Docks, namely, by the British Transport Commission acting on behalf of Newport Docks.
I do not believe—I must say this in all honesty—we had in mind the much smaller restriction of the Borough of Newport. Indeed, as the testimony shows, on the last day Mr. Brown, who, I believe, was counsel for Somerset, said:
We also put forward a clause covering the same ground as the Newport and the British Transport Docks Board clause"—
not "clauses" but "clause". Mr. Brown was clearly referring to the Clause which was put forward by the Newport docks people, namely, the British Transport Commission. I think that this is the heart of a misunderstanding, that the Committee sought to restrict the use of the jetty in accordance with the Newport Docks petition and not the Borough of Newport.
I ask the Minister to consider this evidence, because it was never in my mind that we should be empowering the promoters to establish an oil port for the general import of oil and natural gas.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I said when we discussed this matter on 22nd December and, indeed, when we discussed it in the last Parliament that we could all well understand the position of hon. Members representing Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset and other parts of the country who felt that either the amenities or the interests of their areas were being injured by this proposal for building a jetty. Therefore, nobody makes any criticism because they bring these matters before the House as forcibly as they can. I would be the last person to protest against their right to do so. They have every right to make every effort that they can to oppose a Bill which they dislike for these reasons.
But the House should be prepared to remember what has happened all this time and should remember how many objections from hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the Bill have fallen by the wayside as we have gone along. When we had the first debate on this subject in June of last year, two main objections were made by the previous Member for North Somerset. He said, first of all, that there were many experts who objected to the plan that Richard Thomas & Baldwins were proposing. We said, "Why do not you let it go to the Committee where all the experts can put forward their case and the matter can be examined there?" But he was eager to prevent that happening. I can understand why he was so eager, because when the Committee listened to the experts the Committee found that the experts had reached a very different conclusion from that which the previous Member for North Somerset supposed the Committee would reach if it examined all the facts.
Then we had the second objection when we debated the matter in June, that Weston-super-Mare would be very adversely affected. On that issue even the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has capitulated today. He is perfectly satisfied with the agreements which have been made on the subject and, indeed, he has paid his tribute—very properly, if belatedly—to Richard Thomas & Baldwins.

Mr. Webster: Will the hon. Gentleman read the proceedings of 22nd December?

I also pay tribute to the Chairman and to the members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Foot: I do not want to detract from the previous tribute, but the hon. Member in the last debate was still objecting on the ground that his own constituency would be affected. However, as he said, he was withdrawing that objection in effect and was substituting the main case which he presented.

Mr. Webster: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I said that I would not repeat it, but that I would go on to other objections of a broader nature.

Mr. Foot: The last thing I want to do is to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. I think that one of the reasons he did not wish to repeat the argument was that he thought no one was likely to be persuaded by it. The hon. Gentleman has just underlined that point very strongly, and he now appears to nod his head in confirmation of what I have said.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill on his wisdom in restraining himself in the early part of his speech. I am sorry that I cannot offer the same congratulation on the latter part of his speech. I am pointing out that one by one the various objections which have come from hon. Members representing that part of the country have fallen. They have fallen because the facts have been overwhelmingly against them, and my prophecy is that just as they have had to surrender their previous arguments so they will have to surrender the arguments which they have belatedly put forward now.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before leaving the subject of the amenities of Weston-super-Mare, will the hon. Member not concede that safeguards for these amenities have been won by the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), and his colleagues?

Mr. Foot: They have been won by the hard work of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. I do not want to detract from his efforts—but they have been won also because the House accepted the proposal which we advocated, which was that the Bill be submitted to the Committee to be


examined carefully. We prophesied that if the House would take our advice and submit the Bill to that procedure all these claims would be examined, as they were examined, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). As a result it was possible to make all the representations to that Committee which the previous hon. Member for Somerset, North, had said he would not be able to make successfully. Just as the House was wise in accepting our advice previously, so I hope will it do the same now.
Now we have the argument falling back on the last resorts of hon. Members who oppose the Bill. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare says that new matter was introduced surreptitiously in some kind of way and sneaked into the Bill so that people could not see what was happening between 22nd December and then. The hon. Member knows very well that that is not the case, because exactly the same speech, almost word for word, was made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), as will be seen from column 1124 of HANSARD for 22nd December, as the speech which has just been delivered. In other words, the House discussed and examined the matter on 22nd December and rejected these arguments. Now we have the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who was himself a member of the Committee, coming forward with his interpretation of what he thinks were the representations made to that Committee.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With respect, I was very careful, as the hon. Member must realise, to say that this was my own recollection. I spoke for myself.

Mr. Foot: That is exactly what I was trying to emphasise—that the hon. Member spoke for himself and nobody else. That is the precise point which I want to underline, because what the House has to take into account is not the opinion or estimation of the hon. Member, however forcefully he may put it, but the Report from the Committee as a whole. The Report of that Committee as a whole is not in the same sense as that of the hon. Member. This was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. My hon. Friend said that he did not accept the hon. Member's inter-

pretation. Therefore, it might be thought that all we had to do was to weigh the alternative opinions of the Chairman of that Committee and the hon. Member, but even that is not the case. Our argument is even stronger than that.
Hon. Members who know the procedure of the House know perfectly well that on Third Reading of a Bill a vote against the Bill is not a vote on a particular detail. It is a vote against the whole principle of the Bill. I can understand the hon. Members for Somerset, North and Weston-super-Mare saying that they will vote against the Third Reading because they are opposed to the whole principle of the Bill. They have been so opposed throughout, but it is not open to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to vote against the Bill even if the grounds on which he has spoken were correct, and we have seen that they are not. But even if they were, this is a detail of the Bill, and the details of the Bill, according to our procedure, are examined by a Committee. When the matter comes back to the House of Commons, the House votes again on the main principle of the Bill, according to what has happened in the Committee.
If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds had any doubts or difficulties about the Bill in Committee, he should have raised them there. What we have to do on the Third Reading is to vote on the principle of the Measure. Although hon. Members who have opposed the Bill throughout are perfectly within their rights, we are entitled to say, as a House of Commons, that, whatever may have been the previous situation, today their opposition to the Bill has been frivolous and fraudulent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It has been frivolous because they have not advanced any serious reason to sustain their argument. They have tried to fall back on the introduction of fresh arguments which are shown to be false. If they had merely said, "We stick by our original opposition to the Bill", I could respect them the more; but they have tried to entice support on their side against this Measure by misrepresenting it to the House of Commons, and that is a very serious thing to do.

Mr. Webster: No. What misrepresentation has there been?

Mr. Foot: I do not want to repeat what I have said. I have tried to show that it is quite false to suggest, as the


hon. Gentleman did in his speech, that a fresh matter had been introduced into the Bill. That was the hon. Gentleman's main argument, but, in fact, no fresh matter has been introduced into the Bill. This is exactly the same Bill as the House discussed on 22nd December. That is why I say there has been misrepresentation. I understand the purpose of it; the hon. Gentleman is trying to get a few others to vote with him this evening, and he has tried to put up some reason to persuade his hon. Friends that something appalling and unparliamentary has occurred.

Mr. Paul Dean: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the previous debate in HANSARD, he will find that the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and I put forward on this point were precisely the arguments which my hon. Friend has put forward this evening.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Somerset, North takes the point very quickly. I congratulate him. He has put my case much more succinctly than I could. I hope to have his support in the Lobby later. I hope—though I shall not shed too many tears about it—that he will not lose his seat in Somerset, North as a result. What he has said confirms what I have argued. There was, in fact, no new matter introduced, and this is the same Measure which the House discussed on 22nd December. Therefore, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was misrepresenting the situation when he said that something new had been introduced.
After having had the Bill meticulously examined by a Committee of the House of Lords and a Committee of the House of Commons, having had frequent debates on the Floor here—this being the third—after all the money and effort spent, after all the trouble taken by Richard Thomas & Baldwins and others to meet all legitimate points of objection, it would be an outrageous state of affairs if the Bill were to be defeated, particularly if it were to be defeated for frivolous and misrepresented reasons.
But it is worse than that. Even the passage of the Bill does not mean that the jetty is necessarily to be built. There are some further safeguards in this

"rushed" Measure, as the hon. Gentleman in one of his flights of fancy called it. There are further Parliamentary tollgates to be passed. We are to have the report of the National Ports Council, which has to decide on the whole question of where new port facilities can best be provided in South Wales. I hope that the report will come soon and that the Government will pronounce their views on it soon and that we may eventually get some action, for that is what many people want. That is one safeguard. We have also the safeguard of the procedure recommended in the Bill. The matter has to be referred again to the Ministry of Transport. It is not as if even when the Measure is passed the proposals of the Bill will immediately come into operation.
The Bill was introduced because of the public spirit of the firm concerned. [Laughter.] Of course it was. It is concerned to improve the facilities for the import of iron ore for both Llanwern and Ebbw Vale, and thereby it contributes to our exports and welfare, and it hopes to contribute further to the nation's production efforts. It wants to get on with the job. Therefore, it was advised to have the Bill in preparation so that there should be the minimum of delay after the National Ports Council had made its decision.
The Bill has been through all the Parliamentary procedures. Every possible objector had had every chance to put his objection before a House of Lords Committee and a House of Commons Committee, and there will be more possibilities of putting objections in the further examination under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government procedure provided for in the Bill. The firm has done everything conceivable in its power to accord with the procedures laid down by Parliament. There is not an hon. Member who can honestly say that it has tried to interfere with what this House and Parliament are trying to lay down about how the matter should be conducted.
It would be a most deplorable state of affairs if the House were so utterly irresponsible at the end of all this procedure as to throw the Bill out. As I said at an earlier stage, if the Bill were thrown out, we could give up talking about the modernisation of the country. This is an attempt by one of the most public-spirited firms in the country to


ensure that the productive power of the nation is increased. The firm has made as big a contribution to our exports as any other. It is a firm whose steel production was one of the reasons why we won the war. The responsibility today is on, not the firm, but the House of Commons.
The procedure for trying to modernise Britain is bad enough. I hope that the Government will learn from the way this procedure has operated that it should be speeded up and made much faster. If every firm which wants to provide fresh facilities for increasing its productive power has to go through all the endless rigmarole that we have had over the Bill, it will be well into the next century before we modernise Britain.
The House has a responsibility to those who are trying to get ahead with the job. I hope that the House will make no mistake and that there will not be any attempt at frivolous action as though this were a matter of no importance. If the House were to reject the Bill, it would inflict wanton injury on a firm which has done its best to contribute to the nation's welfare.

10.44 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I have not previously spoken on the Bill on the Floor of the House and I confess that I did not realise that it aroused so much passion as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has put into it. I was a member of the Select Committee and would like to pay my tribute to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who conducted the long and arduous proceedings so successfully. I am sorry that some slight difference of opinion seems to have emerged as a result. In the end, probably it would not have made any difference anyhow if we had considered this aspect upstairs and so avoided this misunderstanding.
It is argued by my hon. Friends that the Bill will allow unlimited supplies of crude oil or natural gas to go in through this jetty if it is built. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale attacked my hon. Friend for the point he put forward, for my hon. Friend made it only to get the record straight. That is my reason for putting my view now. I do not believe that we considered this point

upstairs, although, as I have said, if we had it might well have made no difference to our decision. I do not believe we considered this and, speaking from memory, I will give one reason for my thinking this.
With my nautical background, I was particularly interested in the movements of shipping around the jetty and asked questions on the subject. I am sure that we considered only the movements of the ore carriers. We were given detailed figures of the number of ore carriers and their size that would use the jetty every week. In my recollection, we did not consider oil or gas tankers.
I asked questions particularly on the interruption of shipping going into and coming out of Bristol and having to pass this jetty with ore carriers being turned and made fast alongside. It transpired that the number of carriers using the jetty would not interfere with the movement of traffic. We never considered whether traffic would be interfered with if oil or gas tankers were using the channel. Nor did we consider the size of these tankers.
It may be that if these oil or gas tankers were bigger than the ore carriers—which, as I recall it, would be of 65,000 tons—the jetty would have to be stronger. The piers would have to be stouter. We had long discussions on the effect building the jetty would have on the regime in the Severn Estuary, but we did not consider the additional number of ships if oil or gas tankers were to be involved. I repeat, however, that it might have made no difference to our decision if we had. In considering the amenities of the North Somerset coast, we considered only the effect of the ore carriers. We did not consider oil slicks or gas smells.

Mr. Blackburn: It is not very edifying for members of the Select Committee to argue on the Floor of the House about what exactly took place upstairs. But surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman remembers that, when we discussed the question of iron ore being imported to the works, it was admitted that the works would require fuel and raw materials to deal with the ore when it was there. Consequently it would be necessary for the firm to be able to import oil and natural gas. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will return to the suggested


Amendment that was submitted to us—I am not talking about the earliest Petitions—both by Newport and by Weston-super-Mare, I think that his anxiety will be dispersed.

Captain Elliot: I do not want to hold up the House by turning to Amendments suggested in Committee, but my recollection about the question of oil and natural gas is the same as that of my hon. Friends—that they were for the Spencer Works only and not in unlimited quantities. If we had considered all these things, it may well be that our decision would not have been different. There was no question of our failure to modernise Britain, for we considered the matter from that point of view. I am sorry that this small difference of opinion has arisen, but I thought that I should make clear for the record what is my recollection of what happened.

10.51 p.m.

Sir William Robson Brown: I am profoundly distressed by the trend of the discussion. The House has considerable responsibilities for the economic position of the nation and the steel industry in particular. I would be a most unhappy man if at the end of the debate I found that the Bill had been rejected at the eleventh hour. At some time in this Parliament we have to debate the general position of the steel industry, and I should be most unhappy if my party could be accused of standing in the way of the progress of a great national industry and an important component of it in South Wales.
The purpose and intention of the jetty are clear and specific. They are to reduce the operating costs of the great works at Llanwern, and terrific capital expenditure has been embarked upon for this purpose. The Bill has taken longer than any other in my Parliamentary experience. It has now been debated on the Floor of the House three times. It has been to a Select Committee, which has made its recommendations.
I listened to the reasoned arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and at one time I thought that they were advancing general representations from their constituencies for which I had great sympathy, but

then they suddenly abandoned all that tonight, apparently, and at the last minute they have introduced a red herring. Is there any hon. Member who believes that Richard Thomas & Baldwin, or any other company in the United Kingdom, can import natural gas and dispose of it as it will? As the law stands, it can bring in all the gas it requires for its own use, but it cannot dispose of it to anybody else without the authority and agreement of the Gas Council. That completely disposes of that argument.
The second argument is that the import of oil might affect Bristol docks, but is it seriously suggested that oil will be discharged on the Newport side of the Bristol Channel and then taken all the way through Gloucestershire to Bristol? I have never heard so ludicrous a suggestion and I utterly repudiate it.

Mr. Webster: That suggestion was never made.

Sir W. Robson Brown: That is the way it was put to me and I can only follow the argument as presented. The House has a grave responsibility in all these questions. The Select Committee made its Report. Rather belatedly, we are debating an argument produced at the last minute to try to circumvent or to reject the Report of the Select Committee.
This is not the last word on the matter, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said. It is not usual that I am in agreement with the hon. Member, but tonight I have to be, because he is the Member for Ebbw Vale. He has a vested interest in this matter for the great steelworks at Ebbw Vale. I should like to have heard the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) speaking for Newport, and speaking for the Llanwern works as well.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has nothing to do with the Llanwern works.

Sir W. Robson Brown: Whoever represents the constituency in which the Llanwern works is situated makes no difference to the argument.
When the House votes tonight for the Bill, which has gone through so much travail, discussion and debate, this is not the end of the matter, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale correctly said. There is,


next, the inquiry by the British Transport Docks Board, which will weigh up these problems and the question of what should be taken on its jetty and decide accordingly; and, ultimately, the Minister has to give his sanction. I am content and prepared to leave it to the final inquiry and to the Minister to make his judgment. I hope that neither of them will stand in the way of our economic growth and prosperity.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: As the only hon. Member in the House with a vested interest in this case, because the jetty and the Llanwern works are in my constituency, I wish to detain the House for only a few moments.
There is something painfully familiar about almost all the speeches made in this debate. I make no complaint about that, and I make no complaint about my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). Of course, he is right to put his constituency points, and I do not think that anybody would contend that he had failed to put them. He has put them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) said, not once, but many times, and the whole House is now familiar with them in detail. It must be some satisfaction to him and I hope that it will do both of my hon. Friends the credit they deserve with their constituents.
As to my hon. Friends who attended the Committee, I would say that in Monmouthshire, when we say Newport, we mean Newport. We do not mean Newport Docks, the British Transport Commission, or Dr. Beeching. We mean simply Newport. When we speak of the Clause submitted by Newport, no doubt we mean and understand the Clause submitted by Newport.
However, that seems to be rather a Committee point than a point to be taken upon the Third Reading of the Bill and although, like other hon. Members on this side, I am not always in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who represents a subsidiary portion a little way to the north of the area under discussion, I agree with him from the Parliamentary aspect that on Third Reading of the Bill we are discussing the substance of the Bill.
By now, the House should more or less have reached a conclusion about the sub-

stance of the Bill and that if we intend to modernise the country at all, we had better give facilities for one of our greatest steelworks to import the raw material that it requires. Anybody in the House, on either side, on the Front Bench or on the back benches, who failed to support that proposition would find it difficult to say that he seriously believed in the modernisation of the country.
We have been all through this over and over again and, at the end of it, we will not even be sure that anything especially happens about it. This is only an enabling Bill. The planning permission procedure will be followed by the Minister. The whole parade will be gone through. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare or those interested will be able to appear at a public inquiry. At every point, the whole process of democracy can be gone through almost all over again. This is not a dramatic Measure, but it is one step to enable the modernisation of Britain to be carried a little further. Therefore, I simply rise to say that, though I have opposed the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary at various times in my life, on this occasion I wish him well and hope that he can persuade all of us that we should support the Bill in the Lobby tonight.

11.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): This is the third Bill of this kind with which I have had to deal tonight, and, therefore, I hope that the House will sympathise with me if I am brief. I think that I can be brief, because it is quite clear that there is nothing new to be said about this Bill at all. There could not be anything new.
This is the Bill which was considered by us on 22nd December, and which we adopted. There were then opportunities for all hon. Members to come forward. It is a little surprising that, after we have been through all these processes—what the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), on the last occasion, called "putting the thing through a fine toothcomb"—there are still hon. Members who appear not to have read the Bill, or not to be aware of what is in it. I understand that these debates on Third Reading should be on what is in the Bill, though I trust that I shall be granted some of the latitude granted to others.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) does himself any credit or his constituents the slightest good by making false allegations and misrepresentations. The matters he referred to were brought forward on 22nd December and the opportunity for debate was given then. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that there is nothing new to be considered now on the Third Reading of the Bill. He knows perfectly well that all the effects on amenity, and so on, have been gone into, and that the promoters agreed to write into the Bill certain duties imposed upon them to make models and carry out tests to diminish any nuisance which might be caused.
The hon. Member knows that the assurances have been repeated that before any Government decision is taken on the matter, the recommendations of the National Ports Council about imports into South Wales and the effects of making any jetties will be debated in the House. He knows—because I gave it on 22nd December—that the assurance has been given that before anything is done there will be consultations with the local authorities involved about amenity and other aspects.
These assurances have been given. We received the Report of the National Ports Council on 20th January and it is being urgently considered. The hon. Gentleman should know very well that such communications between my right hon. Friend and the Council are confidential. I should have thought that he would have known that much of the evidence given to the Council was given in private. That is why the Report will not be published.
But, once again, I use the opportunity to say that the recommendations made to the Government, and which are now under confidential consideration, will be published. They will be debated in the House before any decision is taken by the Government, but, to expedite this matter, because it is one of national importance—a great scheme is involved here which will involve the investment of tens of millions of pounds—we want this enabling, empowering Bill to be passed so that, should it turn out that this is the scheme which is chosen, there will be no delay in carrying it through.
I therefore hope that we can draw this debate to a conclusion and, if it is necessary—I hope that it will not be—we can go to the vote.

Mr. Donald Box: I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can clear up one point. He said that the recommendations of the National Ports Council would be debated on the Floor of the House before a Government decision is taken. Can he confirm that he meant what he actually said—that it will be debated on the Floor of the House before a Government decision is taken?

Mr. Swingler: What is the matter with the hon. Member? How many times do I have to say it? I have said it again tonight, it was said on 22nd December, it was said by my predecessors, we have said it repeatedly to hon. Members who have raised the matter, that the Council's recommendations will be debated in the House before any decision is taken. Now that I have said it so many times, perhaps hon. Members will accept it.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the House gives the Bill a Third Reading, I might speak on behalf of the other end of the jetty from that supported—if that is the right word—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), because the business end of the jetty, if I may so call it, comes within the jurisdiction of the Port of Bristol.
Hon. Members for the City of Bristol—all of them, on both sides of the House—have, naturally, watched the proceedings on the Bill with some interest. Although we are most anxious that nothing should impede the future progress of the Port of Bristol, on the welfare of which so much else depends in the surrounding districts, we have at all stages been most anxious that nothing should be put in the Bill which would in any way damage the surrounding countryside unnecessarily.
I pay a tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) who, in spite of some of the strictures passed on him this evening, has done a worthy job in bringing the attention of the public, and of the House and its Committees, to all the various misgivings which there have been, some of them completely groundless and


some perhaps not so groundless. He has served a very useful purpose in bringing this matter to the notice of the House, although I could not follow him this evening in some of the allegations which he made. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has joined him in this work in seeing that all is properly ventilated.
I find myself in some agreement with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), although not with anything that he said in backing up his case, because his whole speech could be torn to pieces in detail. I will not do that now; it would be out of order, as I am sure his speech was out of order. But I join him in saying that it is surely right that the House should give a Third Reading to the Bill, which empowers the jetty to be built if it is found to be the best piece of machinery for modernising the steel industry and making it competitive in a competitive world.
On my own account from the City of Bristol and on behalf of the Port of Bristol Authority, I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading tonight.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: The arguments which have been advanced by the Minister today have been very similar to those put forward in the last debate. They did not satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) on that occasion and they do not satisfy us now, either.
The essence of the arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary on both occasions has been, broadly, "Do not worry. It is only an enabling Bill. We have not decided which scheme will be the most suitable to provide the facilities required. There will be further consultation and another debate." If we look at that from the point of view of my hon. Friend and myself, who feel that the interests of our constituents will be deeply disturbed by the Bill, it is rather like saying to us, "We have not yet decided whether we shall chop off your heads, but we invite you to help us to sharpen the chopper, so that if we decide to chop them off we shall be able to do so rapidly." This is a grim prospect, which offers very little comfort to my hon. Friend or myself.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that our arguments in bringing this forward again were frivolous. Feeling as we do about this matter, we would have been failing in our duty to our constituents had we let the Bill go forward without another opportunity to comment further on it.
It is not only a question of the arguments which were put forward on the last occasion we discussed the Measure—arguments to which, we believe, we have still not received satisfactory answers—because certain things have evolved and developed since then. I do not want to enter unduly into the genuine misunderstandings which appear to have arisen about the Bill, but it is of some relevance that two hon. Members who had considered the Bill in Committee were of the opinion that Clause 25 which is now in the Measure was not, in fact, the proposal which they thought was being included.
This is an extremely important point. It is one of the real fears which we had when we spoke in the debate on the last occasion. We felt that the original intention had been substantially extended—and the more it was extended the more the arguments about noise, dust and so on—the amenity arguments generally—were strengthened.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not use the intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) or my own to sustain his case in objecting to the Bill as such. I remind him that my hon. and gallant Friend and voted in Committee for the jetty to be built in the national interest. I hope, therefore, that no one will fail to realise that that was the Committee's intention.
My purpose in intervening—as was the object of the intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend—was to place the truth as we knew it on the record. I regret that the Minister did not see fit to deal with the point I made. However, with respect to my hon. Friend, I trust that he will not use my intervention in an effort to sustain his case.

Mr. Dean: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Nevertheless, the Minister could at least have given his views on this matter, for it concerns not so much any misunderstandings there may have been


in Committee, but a matter which intimately concerns the Government, because my understanding of it is that the Government, in giving their agreement to the Bill, laid down certain conditions. These were given in the Report of the Iron and Steel Board for 1963, which stated that the Government's agreement was conditional on the Bill not being drawn more widely than was necessary to provide for the import of raw materials. That was the original intention and condition on which the Government's agreement for the Bill to proceed was given; whereas Clause 25 is much wider than that. Because it is wider, the real fears which we have on amenity grounds are thereby substantially increased. That is one reason why we have felt bound to bring the matter forward again, in the hope that the Minister would be able to comment further on it.
On another point, the Minister has not been able to give satisfaction this evening any more than he did on the previous occasion. I asked him to specify what the consultations with local authorities would be. He told me that they would be on the amenity aspects, but the important point is whether those consultations will merely be a polite talk, or whether the local authorities will be consulted as the bodies responsible for the planning and development of their areas.
The significance of this is that if they are to be consulted as planning authorities, one assumes that the normal procedures will operate, and that objections will be followed by a local public inquiry at which the local authorities and individuals will have their chance of putting their case. The Minister has not said whether or not that will be the case. If not, it seems to me to be most unfair to local authorities which are charged with the development and protection of natural amenities of their areas.
Much of the coastline both in the vicinity of the proposed jetty and elsewhere is already designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, much of it is in the green belt—and negotiations are now going on between the county council and the Ministry of Housing to make the green belt proposals firm. How can we expect local authorities to carry out this extremely onerous and difficult task of preserving the national heritage—a task laid on them by the Ministry of Housing and Local Govern-

ment—if they are not to be effective as planning authorities in regard to a matter taking place in the estuary rather than on the land?
On the last occasion, the Minister said that whatever the recommendations of the Council might be there would be a debate in the House on them. The hon. Gentleman has said tonight that the Government have now received the Report, and I understood him to say that the recommendations will be published. I would be grateful if he could clear up the confusion that certainly exists in my mind on that point, because his right hon. Friend the Minister told me, in reply to a Question on 20th January:
The Council's report is a confidential report to the Government. I do not think anyone has ever suggested that it should be published, but when the Government's decision is made known information will be given about the Council's conclusions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January 1965; Vol. 705, c. 196.]
I understand the hon. Gentleman now to say that the Report will be published in full in advance of the debate in the House, and the Government reaching their conclusion—

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman may not have been here, but I said that it was understood that certain evidence was given to the National Ports Council in confidence. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would wish the Government to break that confidence, but very important information was given to the Council confidentially. It is, therefore, quite clear that the Report as a whole cannot be published. I should have thought that that was obvious to any person.
What I quite clearly said was—and this is the "umpteenth" time that I have given the assurance—that the recommendations of the National Ports Council will be published, together with the Government's proposals, before any decision is taken, and will be debated in this House at the same time as the consultations go on with the local authorities. I think that should now be fairly clear and I hope it will not fall to me to have to reply to that point any more.

Mr. Dean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, now that he has cleared the matter up. I understand him to say that the full recommendations of the National Ports Council will be published, although


the confidential evidence which the Council may give will not. This has cleared up an immensely important matter. The impression that I received from the Minister was that the recommendations would not be published and that we would only get what the right hon. Gentleman on the former occasion referred to as information about the Council's conclusions. I am glad of the clarification, because without that it would be quite impossible to have an effective debate in this House. It would have meant that the Government would have had the whole of the information and this House would have had only a part of it.
There are, then, at least three points which I have mentioned with which the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to deal fully or on which he has not given a satisfactory reply. In view of that, I have no alternative but to register my strong protest against the Bill, about the way in which it has been handled, and to do this in the only effective way possible.

11 .23 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I intervene briefly, although I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would be the first to agree that this important matter should be debated fully.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) alluded to some remarks of mine when the Bill was last before the House. I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of his speech. He referred to my remarks when I said that I was

under the impression that Richard Thomas & Baldwins had offered to pay for certain tests necessary to prove the effect of this jetty upon the currents in the channel and that subsequently the firm had said that this was not so.

I should like to say to my hon. Friend that I was under this impression. I think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was under the same impression. I was given this impression by a firm of consultants to Richard Thomas & Baldwins which has a high reputation. The firm was under this impression and gave me the information in perfectly good faith. Having said that, and on the basis of what I understand my hon. Friend said in his speech, I am more than ready to withdraw the assertion that I made earlier.

I have little more to add except to point out that this debate is really about steel. Anybody who knows anything about the steel industry knows perfectly well that where we are lacking is in the sector of freight rates. It is in the cost of importing ore into this country that the fault lies. If our competitors—the Japanese, the Americans and the Swedes—had heard this debate tonight they would have been amazed at the patience which the House has shown at the perfectly legitimate defence which has been adduced by my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). For my part, I hope that the Bill will go through.

Question put, That now" stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 2.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[11.25p.m.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Palmer, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, Stephen
Price, J. T. (westhoughton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hayman, F.H.
Probert, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Robertson, John(Paisley)


Brown, Sir Edward(Bath)
Howell, Denis(Small Heath)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Howie, W.
Shore, Peter(Stepney)


Channon, H.P.G.
Hoy, James
Silkin, John(Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Dan(Burnley)
Solomons, Henry


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Kenyon, Clifford
Swingler, Stephen


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wainwright, Edwin


Diamond, John
McBride, Neil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dodds, Norman
McCann, J.
Watkins, Tudor


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Wells, William(Walsall, N.)


Fitch, Alan(Wigan)
Mackie, John(Enfield, E.)
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Maxwell, Robert
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeson, Reginald
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Newens, Stan



Gardner, Edward
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Sir William Robson Brown and


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Michael Foot.




NOES


currie, G. B. H.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Webster and Mr. Dean.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ADJOURNMENT

It being after Ten o'clock, the postponed proceeding on Question, That this House do now adjourn, lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, fir the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Development of Inventions Acts 1948 to 1958, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the increase from £10 million to £25 million of the limit on the amount of advances to the National Research Development Corporation which can be made under section 7 of the Development of Inventions Act 1948, the removal of any restriction on the time within which and the purposes for which the advances can be made, and their payment out of money provided by Parliament instead of out of the Consolidated Fund,
(b) the remission of any liability of the Corporation in respect of any such advances, including advances already made,
(c) the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(i) of sums to be paid to the Corporation by the Minister and to be used by the Corporation to meet interest due on any such advances, and
(ii) of sums paid to the Corporation by any Government department other than the Post Office in connection with any project carried out by the Corporation in response to representations made by the Government department, and
(iii) any increase in money so payable attributable to an increase in the membership of the Corporation,

(d) any payment into the Exchequer.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY FARES, ESSEX (INCREASES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: No subject has aroused greater anger and frustration among my constituents in recent years than the arbitrary and unfair way in which British Railways increased fares on 1st February. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for making it possible for me to ventilate the matter, and to my colleagues, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) and Southend, West (Mr. Channon), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), whose constituents, like mine, are affected, for giving me their support.
Considerable increases in rail fares have been inflicted on Essex commuters with monotonous regularity in recent years. Season ticket charges went up by 10 per cent. in 1963, by 7½ per cent. in 1964 and now over 6 per cent. on 1st February. This represents an increase of about 25 per cent, over a period of 20 months. As far as I am aware, an increase of such magnitude has not been imposed on any other area in the country. I want to know why we in Essex have been singled out in this way.
Moreover, this is not the whole story. For a proportion of Essex commuters, those who are obliged to use off-peak tickets, the alterations from 1st February were not limited to increases of 6 per cent. or even of 10 per cent., but of 70 and 75 per cent., a crippling impost if there ever was one, and one which is causing great hardship.
It is the basis of my argument that these new increases were made in circumstances which call for the strongest possible protest and for an assurance that some action will be taken by the Minister. I will outline the sequence of events. In July last year, season ticket fares were increased by 7½ per cent. on the commuter lines into London, yet within three


months the British Railways Board announced its intention to increase these fares by a further 5 per cent., and, at the same time, to abolish day return tickets for distances of over 10 miles.
As regards inner London, as we all know, it was necessary for the Board to lodge its applications with the Transport Tribunal, the reason being that, within the London fares area, as it was statutorily defined in 1933, alterations in passenger fares have to be submitted for confirmation to the Tribunal, and cannot be raised anyway by more than 10 per cent. Outside the London fares area, on the other hand, the railways have not been required since 1962 to submit their proposals to the Tribunal.
I submit that, had the Tribunal considered that a case for a 5 per cent. increase within the London fares area had been made out, it would have been hardly inequitable to apply a similar increase to commuter lines outside the London area. I concede that. But, in the event, the Tribunal, after hearing the applications, rejected them. It did not accept that British Rail had made out its case. However, far from this causing the Board to reflect on the position, it rushed straight ahead with an announcement that it would increase fares on the outer London commuter lines by 5 per cent.
While the Board was, of course, legally free to do this, it was a singularly unfortunate move, to put it no higher, in the light of its failure to establish a case for increases within the London fares area. This in itself was hard enough for my constituents to bear, but the House will readily understand their anger when they discovered, without any explanation being given, that the proposed increases for them were in excess of the published 5 per cent.
Here are some illustrations of the actual increases on the two lines serving my constituency. First, on the Liverpool Street line, the quarterly season ticket from Hockley went up from £26 4s. to £27 17s., an increase not of 5 per cent., as British Railways had announced, but of 6·3 per cent. Second, on the Fen-church Street line, the quarterly season ticket from Leigh-on-Sea, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West but used also by my

constituents, went up from £25 19s. to £27 11s., an increase not of 5 per cent., but of 6·17 per cent.
One looks in vain for any principle in these figures. It seems that the only principle which guides this vast monopoly, when it does not have to justify itself to the Transport Tribunal, is that there shall be no principles at all. These increases come on top of the 7½ per cent. increase last July, and now thousands of my constituents, and tens of thousands of people elsewhere in Essex, have had to accept within seven months a rise of about 13½ per cent. in their cost of travel. This must be about the steepest rise in any item of personal expenditure. But when one considers the effect of the withdrawal of the off-peak tickets, it is little short of catastrophic.
I have had some pitiful letters on the subject. I have one here from a postman who works at Mount Pleasant. He writes:
Until last week, I used the five-day off-peak ticket to Farringdon Street from Benfleet, at a cost of 30s. 6d. weekly. Off-peak tickets from this station are now abolished. I have to take a weekly ticket, cost 55s., an increase of 24s. 6d. weekly. I am one of many who have been shabbily treated. Many of these people find the increases almost more than they can stand, with meeting their other payments.
Is it surprising that I have letters of that kind coming to me?
Here is another from a married man with one child aged two, who writes:
I am purchasing my own home, and I find that I have no alternative but to sell my property and move back to London.
Another writes:
We are asked to move out of London, and are then held up to ransom by people who cannot have any idea what trouble they cause. I have been in my present job for 16 years. Am I expected to give this up, or move back to London?
In anticipation of the storm that was about to break, I wrote to the Minister in January drawing his attention to two points. The first was the impropriety of British Rail in persisting in going ahead in imposing on outer London commuters what was not only a 5 per cent. increase in season tickets and alterations in other fares after the Transport Tribunal's rejection of similar increases for inner London commuters. The second was the unfairness of the increases which, when actually imposed, were seen to be in excess of the published 5 per cent.
I asked the Minister if he would intervene to stop the increases. The right hon. Gentleman did not write to me until after the new fares had been imposed. He then told me that fares as such were not for him, but were a matter for British Rail. He said that he had no power to intervene, and, accordingly, had forwarded the correspondence to Dr. Beeching.
I do not wish to argue here the difficulties of railway finance. I recognise that there are difficulties. It may well be that over the country as a whole we should pay an economic rate for the services that the railways provide—

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Does not my hon. Friend consider it disturbing that, although there has been public investment of £1,200,000,000 over the last I0 years, British Rail has not yet been able to contain its costs better than this?

Mr. Braine: That takes the matter a little wider, but I agree with my hon. Friend. His constituents as well as mine are gravely affected. To the people he and I represent, the railways are a monopoly. There is simply no alternative way of getting to and from work. When a monopoly uses its position to levy charges which cause hardship, someone must speak and someone must act.
I dispute that the Minister has no powers to intervene. In 1952 the then Minister of Transport intervened to stop the 20 per cent. fares increase in the London area, which then included the Fenchurch Street line which serves my constituency, and he did so under Section 4 of the 1947 Act. That power, modified in a way which is essentially fair to the railways, is continued in the Transport Act, 1962.

Mr. Edward Gardner: This is a very important point. Would not my hon. Friend agree that if the Government can, without statutory powers, persuade private industries to keep their prices down, the Minister, with statutory powers like those in Section 27 of the Act, should be able to ensure that the nationalised railways follow the example which the Government expect private industry to set?

Mr. Braine: I entirely agree. Section 27 says that the Minister may, after consultation with any board, give to that board directions of a general character

as to the exercise and performance by the board of its functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest.
In short, it is my contention that the Minister could at least have consulted the railway authorities about the advisability of not proceeding with the proposed increases in the light of the decision of the Transport Tribunal over similar increases in the London area, or at least, if it felt that it must go ahead, he could have advised them to be careful not to increase any fares by more than 5 per cent. But the Minister decided to do nothing.
The situation which I have described is one which in the national interest requires the Minister to intervene. I will explain briefly why I hold that view. Without arguing whether the then Minister's intervention in 1952 was justified or not, the then Home Secretary said:
The principle upon which the Government are acting is that, while the public generally can rightly be called upon to pay the cost of providing them with reasonable transport services, it is unfair to call upon particular classes of passengers to pay increases which are out of all proportion to those applicable to the public generally and which cause an unexpected upset in their daily lives. To give a single example: it is a severe hardship upon a man who has taken his season ticket rate into account in choosing his place of residence to have such an increase as 42 per cent. suddenly added to a figure which may already bulk very large in his domestic budget"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 1024.]
That principle illustrates perfectly the present position, except that for many of my constituents who have come to live in south-east Essex and whose limited means force them to use off-peak tickets the increase is not 42 per cent. but between 70 and 75 per cent. The effect is not merely to create severe hardship but an intolerable situation which is unsettling their household budgets, undermining their security and disturbing their peace of mind.
Indeed, when one considers what has been said by right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the need to keep prices under control it is all the more incredible that a public monopoly should be allowed to inflict increases of this kind on people who have, for the most part, no alternative means of getting to work. For those with cars, the only effect is to drive them on to the already congested roads.
The House will recall the flourish of trumpets with which the Secretary of State announced on 11th February the steps the Government have taken to provide machinery designed to keep the movement of prices and incomes constantly under review and to examine particular cases. Whatever our other differences here, all of us wish the Government well in these endeavours, but it is in the light of these endeavours that I find it astonishing that the Minister of Transport did not take steps to intervene to prevent these savage, punitive rises in fare, inflicted on my constituents without explanation as to how they were calculated and without justification as to their necessity.
After all, to whom can my constituents turn if not to the Minister of Transport? They are not protected by the Transport Tribunal. They cannot complain to the transport users' consultative committee. But the Minister has the power to intervene to ensure fair play in the national interest if he chooses to exercise it. Nor can the matter be left there. Whatever view the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—who has had a busy stint today, so I do not want to press him too hard—may take tonight of the grievance I have laid before the House it is utterly unsatisfactory to leave complete powers to a transport monopoly to vary charges as it pleases without regard to social and economic consequences.
I am aware that tonight I am precluded from asking for changes in the law but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will indicate when he replies whether he sees the possibility of widening the jurisdiction of the Transport Tribunal or providing in some other way effective safeguards for transport users against what, I am afraid, must be regarded as arbitrary and unfair treatment.

11.48 p.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: My hon. Friend has stressed that the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is keen to keep prices down. Why then, in this House, does the Secretary of State refuse to answer questions on what steps he should take to keep rail fares down? The right hon. Gentleman "passes the buck" to the Minister of Transport, who passes it on to Dr. Beeching.
Tonight, an Eastern Region spokesman had something interesting to say. At a time when British Rail is reducing fares from Upminster it is to increase fares on the rest of the line. Another aspect is partly historical. The spokesman said that in the past British Rail had tried to persuade people to go to Southend by making fares cheaper. But now, having persuaded many of my constituents to go there, buy houses and take on other commitments, British Rail is extorting these increases in fares.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has said.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I wish to draw attention to the tremendous feeling of unfairness that exists in my constituency. Southend has frequently been treated in the past as being part of the London area when fares have been increased. But now, British Rail, unable to get increases for the London area, treats Southend as being outside it. This is regarded as being particularly unfair on the people in south-east Essex who have a tremendous extra burden to bear because of it.
I urge the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say something tonight that will give help to my constituents.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Gardner: May I draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the sense of outrage felt in places like Billericay, where people have bought houses on budgets which are not easily increased, people who now find themselves being crippled by these increases in fares? I ask him to do all he can and to use all his statutory powers to alleviate the present position.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that much of what has been said applies to north-east Essex as well?

11.51 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): One of the fascinations of my job is the variety of problems thrown at one even during the space of a very few hours. I think that I have had a fair spectrum today and in a sense it may be


appropriate that we should end by discussing what I regard as a very serious and important matter.
I have had a look at all the files of correspondence and representations made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and his hon. Friends. Some of us had the benefit of discussing the matter some time ago. I understand and entirely sympathise with his feelings and those of the constituents represented by hon. Members who feel aggrieved by a whole series of fares increases over a long time—not all of which I can speak about—and who suspect that they are the victims of unjust treatment as compared with travellers in other parts of the country. I regard these feelings as natural and very understandable in present circumstances, but I hope to be able tonight to refute any suggestion that in this matter of raising fares the British Railways Board has in any way acted improperly. However, first, I want briefly to review the statutory framework which lays down the responsibilities of the Board.
Under the Transport Act, 1962, the Board has complete freedom outside the statutory area, the London Passenger Transpert area, to set its fares and other charges at whatever level it thinks fit. Inside the London Passenger Transport area, which has been designated as such for a long time, it can vary the fares within maxima laid down by the Transport Tribunal and, of course, it must apply to the Tribunal on any occasion on which it wishes those maxima to be raised.
Furthermore, Section 46 of the Act lays a duty on the Board to make higher charges as it considers necessary to meet the costs of its services. This provision is quite specific. Section 46(4) says:
The London Board and the Railways Board shall make such applications under this section as appear to them to be necessary in order to secure that their charges subject to the London fares orders make a proper contribution to the discharge of their financial duty …
We have to consider the situation which has confronted the Railways Board in recent months. As everybody know, the Board is a very long way from meeting its financial duty, imposed by the 1962 Act and previous legislation, to pay its way, Even before the recent wage award, the Board was running at a deficit, which had to be covered by the taxpayer, of

some £100 million a year. In the Board's view, the London commuter services were responsible for part of this not inconsiderable deficit.
This is why the Board felt obliged last August to apply to the London Transport Tribunal among other things to raise season tickets in the London statutory area by 5 per cent.—this was before the more recent wage award—announcing at the same time that it was raising fares equivalently in the fringe outside area up to a distance of 80 miles from London.
This was the position when, in December last year, the railwaymen were given a substantial wage increase of about 9 per cent. which was estimated to cost the Board an additional £30 million per annum. It was this wage award last December which led the Board to announce a countrywide fare increase designed to recoup—let me be fair to the Board—not the £30 million a year which the extra wage award would cost, but about £10 million, one-third of the increased cost.
I must emphasise that it is the Railway Board's intention to absorb the other two-thirds, the remaining £20 million per annum in the additional wages bill, by means of increased productivity. It has, therefore, limited the season ticket fare increase to a countrywide average of 5 per cent. Thus, the Board made the 5 per cent. increase to finance one-third of the national wage award and, quite properly, according to its statutory duties and responsibilities, applied this increase wherever it could apply it.
It so happened that outer London was at that time, as hon. Members have said, expecting the level of its fares to move with those within the statutory London area on which the Tribunal was at that time about to make and to announce its decision. Therefore, it is understandable that because of this coincidence in timing, many people in outer London, constituents of hon. Members who have spoken tonight, should have thought that the Railways Board was jumping the gun and prejudging the decision of the London Transport Tribunal.
In fact, the Railways Board was not prejudging the Tribunal's decision. The application under consideration by the Tribunal and the countrywide fare increases which came into effect on 1st February arose from entirely different sets


of circumstances: the one from the position last August when, at the wage levels then current, the Board considered that the commuter services did not cover its costs; the other from the entirely new position which confronted the Board when the substantial wage award was given last December.
I must, therefore, emphasise that the Board did not apply the increase to outer London because its application for the statutory area had been refused by the Tribunal. The Board announced its decision on this on 4th January, some weeks before the Tribunal announced its decision rejecting the Board's proposal on 22nd January, although the actual application of the fares increase, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East has said, did not come into force until 1st February.

Mr. Braine: Does the Minister appreciate that my charge of impropriety against the Board is that it increased fares by more than the published 5 per cent. and in some cases, for those who use off-peak season tickets, the increase was of the order of 70 per cent.? Where is the justification in that?

Mr. Swingler: Two points are involved here. First, the Board has power and responsibility to fix these charges at a level which it considers necessary to cover its costs, except in the statutory London Transport area, where they are subject to the judgment of the Tribunal and the Board must submit its proposals to the Tribunal and attempt to justify them. The Board, therefore, had the power and the capacity to impose this increase, which it regarded as necessary, not only because of things that had happened previously, but because of the substantial award given to the railwaymen last December, in the whole of the country outside the statutory London area. That is why the hon. Member's constituents have suffered these increases.
As to the detailed matters which have been raised, I understand that Dr. Beeching has communicated with the hon. Member about the details of the way in which some fare increases have been slightly more than others for various reasons such as, I understand, to bring them up to round sums. This is a managerial matter for the Railways

Board, on which the hon. Member can carry on correspondence with the Chairman of the Board, and I have no doubt that explanations will be given.
Let me say, in conclusion—

Mr. Braine: rose

Mr. Swingler: Unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene—

Mr. Braine: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would make a reference to possible future safeguards.

Mr. Swingler: This, of course, is a matter which falls under our general consideration of transport policy for the future. No doubt the hon. Gentleman noticed that my right hon. Friend, during the course of the first Question Time in which he appeared at the House, referred to what he regarded as the foolish conception which lay behind the Transport Act of 1962. We by no means regard all the provisions of the Act under which these things are dealt with as perfect instruments for trying to ensure either justice or efficiency. But I think that we must be quite clear about this, that the fixing of fares in relation to operating costs must be a managerial responsibility of the national board.
The Board must be responsible to my right hon. friend for the general financial and investment policy which it carries out, but the means and methods by which it fixes fares must be left to the Board.

Mr. Braine: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that these increases were fair, and that that is the reason the Minister was not willing to intervene under the powers which I quoted?

Mr. Swingler: I think that it is not for my right hon. Friend to sit in judgment on the Board on these matters. They clearly come within the Board's managerial responsibility. The Board must be responsible to him for its general financial and investment policy, but, clearly, we must give the Board both the power and the discretion to make decisions and to vary decisions on the level of fares, except where Parliament, in its wisdom, in the past, has laid down—as it has in the London statutory area—that special procedures should be applied whereby a public monopoly of this kind has to justify its fare proposals.
What I have said is in explanation of the position which has caused grievance among the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As I said at the beginning, I fully sympathise with them. In reviewing the financial policies of the nationalised boards in relation to our intention to try to hold prices as well as to apply an incomes policy, the Government will take

fully into account the serious burden of travelling costs which falls upon so many of the working people of the outer London area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.